.... so what differnce does it make on where the piviot near the dropouts is?

It made enough difference to Dave Turner to pay royalties to Specialized for several years! So that means he was either paying for something kinematically better, using it for marketing, or just fooled by it.

 

single pivot bikes

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

 

Turner has never used a Hornst link, nor have they paid Specialized any royalties for a Hornst link. BTW, what the he*l is a Hornst link??????

 

Turner has never used a Hornst link, nor have they paid Specialized any royalties for a Hornst link. BTW, what the he*l is a Hornst link??????

Hornst link goes PAAAAARP!!!! when you sit on the bike, do you know nothing?

 

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

 

Call them the Hornst linkage and the Fubar linkage,
And as none of the above exist

There is nothing to worry about.

 

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

All you really need to do is read the 30+ threads below on the subject and you'll learn more than you'll ever want to know.

 

Turner never used a licklock

He only built very tasty hardtails ---- you can see the finely tuned Ho*&^%NT at the saddle: it outperformed everything on the market in its times

 

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

Don't let the Homer's bad attitudes here get you down...they've just been obsessing over this for several weeks now. Here is the way I understand all of this hoopla...

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

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

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

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

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

Engaging blatant personal opinion mode, proceed at your own risk

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

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

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

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

Dad Man out, flame on.

 

Synopsis....

""hornst link Vs. Faux bar""

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

 

Nice write-up Dead Man. I already started my '*******' version b4 yours popped up...sorry...

 

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

The TNT is a single pivot bike, with a complicated way of actuating the shock. This allows the frame designer to tune how the shock ramps up etc. This is the only advantage the design has over a Heckler / Superlight.
With the availability of tuneable shocks, this is increasingly less of an issue.
The advantage the SC design has is the the brake is located on the same bar as the pivot, negating the possibility of braking forces influencing the suspension.
HL bikes are also supposed to have more rear flex than TNT style, but if you ask the owners of the previous HL designs they may disagree with you.

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

Buy your bike, ride, enjoy in that order.

 

thanks Dad Man Walking.. very informative post

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

thanks everybody..

 

"
Also, TNT is new and not enough people have tried it enough to give the masses enough reviews to form a global opinion.

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

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

 

TNT is new for (from?) Turner, that's what I was referring to...
Doesn't mean it will (or won't) ride the same as any other brand.

 

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

 

This topic has been covered 50 times already in other posts, but I'd like to claify a few points made in this one.

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

Correct - but on all bikes the brakes and axle are mounted to the same suspension link.

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

With the rear pivot on the seatstay, the the rest of the suspension parts are just parts of the shock linkage. Always. Not just by some people's reasoning. Yes the main pivot point placement makes all the difference. No the brake caliper is never mounted to the seatstay, it is on the main swingarm with the axle. This applies to all bikes, the caliper and axle are always on the same link. The brake caliper must always be mounted to the same link as the axle (unless a floating system is used) because otherwise its location with respect to the rotor would change and it would either bind up or move away and not have enough braking surface. Single pivot bikes do not suffer from brake jack (stiffening and rising/extending of the rear suspension), they suffer from mild brake squat (compressing and therefore stiffening of the rear suspension).

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

Correct, how much a rider notices this is very dependant on riding style, terrain, bike setup, etc. That is why it is hard to make a broad statement like "all single pivots suck" with actually riding similar Horst and SP bikes.

 

Yes the main pivot point placement makes all the difference. No the brake caliper is never mounted to the seatstay, it is on the main swingarm with the axle. This applies to all bikes, the caliper and axle are always on the same link. The brake caliper must always be mounted to the same link as the axle

Actually, before disc brakes became standard, faux bar bikes often had rim brakes mounted on the seatstay. The bikes were short enough travel so that the discrepancy in rotation didn't cause a problem. The pads moved a little vertically on the rims as the suspension cycled.

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

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

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

 

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

No, placement of the brake there causes the rear end to get harsh and loose traction when the rear brake is used in rough terrain.

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

If the brake is mounted on the other member (the seatstay) it will remain in relatively the same position as the suspension is cycled, therefore it doesn't put a moment on the suspension that causes your suspension to compress.

 

Actually, before disc brakes became standard, faux bar bikes often had rim brakes mounted on the seatstay. The bikes were short enough travel so that the discrepancy in rotation didn't cause a problem. The pads moved a little vertically on the rims as the suspension cycled.

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

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

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

Kinda like this?

 

No, placement of the brake there causes the rear end to get harsh and loose traction when the rear brake is used in rough terrain.

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

If the brake is mounted on the other member (the seatstay) it will remain in relatively the same position as the suspension is cycled, therefore it doesn't put a moment on the suspension that causes your suspension to compress.

This is ********. It's all about conservation of angular momentum. Jayem is probably an old fart who doesn't ride and sits in front of his computer all day.

 

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

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

What you seem to be missing is that the horst link is part of the ICT patent.
ICT blankets a range of angles for the rockers, but the HL is a mandatory element.

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

Also, if the new TNT design is as good as I expect it to be given Dave Turner's commitment to excellence, maybe it will help prove that the ICT is BS.

 

This is ********. It's all about conservation of angular momentum. Jayem is probably an old fart who doesn't ride and sits in front of his computer all day.

I don't know about old, but I am doubting any actual engineering credentials.

 

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

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

What you say is correct. DT has not come up with some new suspension concept. It is the same as all the other non HL designs he has said were inferior to the HL design he has used for so long. Turner followers take a realality check. It will not perform better than a Ventana or Kona. The shock he specs on his new frames will decide how good they ride.

 

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

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

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