Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
21 - 40 of 102 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,327 Posts
$15

Roy said:
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 :eek: 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 ...
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,345 Posts
bingo.....

Bikezilla said:
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.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
428 Posts
DGC said:
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.
 

·
Daniel the Dog
Joined
·
6,764 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,345 Posts
well

Jaybo said:
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.
 

·
Daniel the Dog
Joined
·
6,764 Posts
Conviction should mean something

DGC said:
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
 

·
Lay off the Levers
Joined
·
10,127 Posts
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.
 

·
Amphibious Technologies
Joined
·
3,472 Posts
Davide said:
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,370 Posts
Bikezilla said:
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.
 

·
Homer's problem child
Joined
·
1,320 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
131 Posts
gettin freaked on horst

this blind loyalty to ride whatever DT produces is freaking hilarious.[/QUOTE said:
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,661 Posts
Discussion Starter · #33 ·
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! :D :D :D

Hope I didn't bore you too much.

Cheers
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
16,457 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
753 Posts
Jerk_Chicken said:
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
896 Posts
ajr said:
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??? :confused: :rolleyes: Clearly you are misinterpreting your friends' opinions.
 

·
The Ancient One
Joined
·
1,573 Posts
ajr said:
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".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,327 Posts
SCUBAPRO said:
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 ... :eek:
 

·
Amphibious Technologies
Joined
·
3,472 Posts
Davide said:
I know ... but it is till annoying: it is skewing the whole USA bicycle market for really no reason other than profit ... :eek:
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.
 
21 - 40 of 102 Posts
Top