[Trevor!]

Hey Y'all

I think this makes for my first posting on the Turner forum (For a new thread anyhow) but nevertheless I do so because a lot of you folk are fairly authoritative with regards to suspension.

Anyhow, I ride a bike with ICT purporting to do wonders to my ride, and heck from where I stand it does. As most of you are aware this year saw the introduction of a pleasant ICT sticker being shipped on Turner bikes and as a consequence many interesting comments have been made with regards to the concept behind ICT.

So my question is in essence, whether or not ICT has any truth (OH god no pun intended) behind its working in practice, or is it merely a marketing gimmick? I've done searches and alike and there is much conflicting commentary so thought I'd ask here.

Cheerio,
Trevor!

 

[tscheezy]

And you were hoping for something other than conflicting commentary here? What??

The best explanation that I have heard is that it does work, but not in the way Tony thinks it does.

Good enough for me.

 

[Trevor!]

Conflicting ideas - Don't you love em?

A better understanding of what I am experiencing on my ride would be good. What should ICT provide, I suppose is what I am getting at.

See I might be changing one frame using ICT to another frame using ICT and just curious as to whether what I have on my Truth (suspension wise) will be similar to that on another bike (Turner).

 

[trailadvent]

Trevor, best way to tell is to go ride a Turner, if you so do the same with other brands if you want to compare suspension designs, then you will get a real answer to how they ride and what suits you..

My ID and the 5 Spot are quite different bikes yet pedal equally well with the same setup e.g shock and settings but handle way different!
So someones theory isn't going to help you..

I have ridden both bikes enough in the same conditions for me, I choose the ID for my style simple as that, you may like the Turner.. Ride one and you'll get the right bike for you!

 

[Jorgen]

ICT makes you ride the most efficient suspension design in the world
That's what I have learned on these forums :-D

I still ride a Turner though, not a bike from he-who-should-not-be-named.

 

[NealM]

According to this http://www.mtbcomprador.com/pa/english/ ICT is a load of marketing BS

 

[Backmarker]

No.

Hey Y'all

I think this makes for my first posting on the Turner forum (For a new thread anyhow) but nevertheless I do so because a lot of you folk are fairly authoritative with regards to suspension.

Anyhow, I ride a bike with ICT purporting to do wonders to my ride, and heck from where I stand it does. As most of you are aware this year saw the introduction of a pleasant ICT sticker being shipped on Turner bikes and as a consequence many interesting comments have been made with regards to the concept behind ICT.

So my question is in essence, whether or not ICT has any truth (OH god no pun intended) behind its working in practice, or is it merely a marketing gimmick? I've done searches and alike and there is much conflicting commentary so thought I'd ask here.

Cheerio,
Trevor!

I'm not sure what you are really asking. If by "marketing" you mean concocting some bogus theory with little or no basis in fact for the sole purpose of selling bicycles, then I would say that ICT is not "marketing". In the ICT patent, the designers have identified some shortcomings of other suspension designs and have set out to come up with a suspension design that addresses these shortcomings. From what I have read, it seems that they (the designers) believe that they have done this and that they believe in ICT theory. So, I wouldn't classify ICT as "marketing".

However, just because the designers believe it's correct, doesn't make it so. Many people believe that some of the claims that have been made in the patent are erroneous. This is the source of many of the more heated discussion about ICT. Someone will claim that ICT is "bogus" (because of these erroneous claims) and this in turn offends some of the Ellsworth owners because they feel that this is an attack on the performance of the bicycle itself. It's not. For example, I may claim that trees are brown because they are made out of chocolate. You may then argue that trees are not made of chocolate, but arguing that trees are not made out of chocolate is not the same thing as arguing that trees are not brown. Trees may very well be brown, but if they are, it's not for the reason I have claimed. In the case of ICT, it may very well be that the bikes do perform exactly as the designers intended (and from most accounts, it seems that they do), but that doesn't mean that the claims made in the patent are correct. For the most part, people are not arguing that ICT bikes don't perform well, they are arguing that it is not for the reasons stated in the patent.

Have you read the ICT patent? If you haven't, you might find it interesting. The objectives of ICT are quite clearly spelled out. You have spent a fair amount on an ICT bike, so you probably will have a pretty good idea as to how well the design addresses these objectives for you. You can find the patent here:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...,378,885.WKU.&OS=PN/6,378,885&RS=PN/6,378,885

So then, if the ICT bikes perform as advertised, why bother to argue the validity of ICT theory? Well, for one thing, granting a patent based on erroneous claims restricts designers from building improved designs that are based on sound principles. For example, lets say a bicycle designer decides that moving the chainstay pivot up a cm or two will have a negligible effect on the performance of the suspension. However, moving the pivot up will significantly reduce drivetrain noise by eliminating contact between the derailleur and the chainstay. So, he decides to do this, but later finds out he now has to license the design from some shady character, and worse yet, put a silly green sticker on every bike he sells. If the patent is based on erroneous claims, he may find this more than just a little bit annoying.

Disclaimer. This example is hypothetical and is a work of fiction. Any resemblance to real people or actual events is purely coincidental.​

What was your original question anywho? Oh yeah, will your current ICT bike (Truth) be similar to your potential new ICT bike (Flux?). In terms of rear suspension performance, they appear to be similar designs, but there are also some differences. Perhaps it depends on how sensitive you are to subtle differences in suspension performance (by my calculations, they are both approximately 103.27% efficient). All kidding aside, I would think that the things that are not covered in the ICT patent (such as fit, geometry, durability, appearance, etc.) will be more noticeable and will have far more impact on which bike you will find preferable. An important factor to consider, is that by purchasing a Flux you will be granted probationary Homer status. That alone is worth the price of admission.

 

[Pete]

I may claim that trees are brown because they are made out of chocolate. You may then argue that trees are not made of chocolate, but arguing that trees are not made out of chocolate is not the same thing as arguing that trees are not brown.

It works like this.

Trees are brown. $hit is brown. Therefore, Tony Ellsworth is full of $hit. Once that has been established, who cares if he's a tree or brown?

Simple, eh?

 

[Steve from JH]

You rang?

If the extended line of the chain is passing through the instant center and if the instant center is positioned relative to the center of mass and the rear ground contact point as shown in the diagram below, you will get no effect on the suspension from pedaling. "Pedaling" here refers strictly to the fluctuations in force passing through the chain and not to any up and down movement of the rider associated with pedaling. Also pedaling does not refer to the acceleration associated with pedaling, which will still affect the suspension.

 

[Steve from JH]

For example, lets say a bicycle designer decides that moving the chainstay pivot up a cm or two will have a negligible effect on the performance of the suspension. However, moving the pivot up will significantly reduce drivetrain noise by eliminating contact between the derailleur and the chainstay. So, he decides to do this, but later finds out he now has to license the design from some shady character, and worse yet, put a silly green sticker on every bike he sells.

Dave Turner moved the dropout pivot up like that on the XCE/Burner design. But that did not make them into ICT bikes. The change in the angle of the rocker arm is what has made all of his linkage bikes, except the Highline, ICT bikes. Now they are all longer and shorter versions of the Afterburner/RFX design which always fell within the definition of ICT.

 

[Backmarker]

Dave Turner moved the dropout pivot up like that on the XCE/Burner design. But that did not make them into ICT bikes. The change in the angle of the rocker arm is what has made all of his linkage bikes, except the Highline, ICT bikes. Now they are all longer and shorter versions of the Afterburner/RFX design which always fell within the definition of ICT.

Yes, I am aware of that (my XCE doesn't have any ICT stickers ). I never made any claims about Turner bikes. You must have missed the disclaimer, it was just a hypothetical example intended to illustrate a point .

You also seem to have missed the point. The ICT patent restricts others from using that configuration for any reason. If the patent is based on factual claims, then that is how it should be. However, if that patent is based on erroneous claims, then that poses a problem. There are lots of valid reasons why Turner may have changed the rocker arm configuration. Perhaps he wanted to move the rocker pivot to the front of the seat tube to allow the rear tire to clear the seat tube in longer travel applications or to allow for shorter chainstays to compensate for the slightly longer top tube of the Flux without lengthening the wheelbase. Perhaps he decided to lengthen the rocker arms to flatten the suspension rate curve. Perhaps he really did have an epiphony and decided after all these years that ICT really is the cat's meow (somehow, I doubt that's the case). I don't know why the changes were made, but that isn't the point. If I were a bike designer and I wanted to change my suspension configuration for valid reasons, but a bogus patent restricted me from doing so, I would not be a happy camper. That's why people are down on ICT, it has nothing to do with the performance of the bikes. At least that's my take.

 

[Steve from JH]

Yes, I am aware of that (my XCE doesn't have any ICT stickers ). I never made any claims about Turner bikes. You must have missed the disclaimer, it was just a hypothetical example intended to illustrate a point .

You also seem to have missed the point. The ICT patent restricts others from using that configuration for any reason. If the patent is based on factual claims, then that is how it should be. However, if that patent is based on erroneous claims, then that poses a problem. There are lots of valid reasons why Turner may have changed the rocker arm configuration. Perhaps he wanted to move the rocker pivot to the front of the seat tube to allow the rear tire to clear the seat tube in longer travel applications or to allow for shorter chainstays to compensate for the slightly longer top tube of the Flux without lengthening the wheelbase. Perhaps he decided to lengthen the rocker arms to flatten the suspension rate curve. Perhaps he really did have an epiphony and decided after all these years that ICT really is the cat's meow (somehow, I doubt that's the case). I don't know why the changes were made, but that isn't the point. If I were a bike designer and I wanted to change my suspension configuration for valid reasons, but a bogus patent restricted me from doing so, I would not be a happy camper. That's why people are down on ICT, it has nothing to do with the performance of the bikes. At least that's my take.

I miss very little.

Your second set of hypothetical examples is better.

I think Turner does believe the ICT setup is better. He just would probably explain it in different terms. He doesn't seem to like to get too much into theory anyway, does he?

There is no such thing as a "bogus" patent. Decisions by the Patent Office are like decisions by the Supreme Court or the Pope. If you've got a patent, you've got a patent, and no one can infringe on it for any reason.

Are you aware of how close the current Truth and the Nitrous are as far as ICT theory goes? The only real differences are less travel and a falling rate for the Nitrous. The Truth has a flat rate. The Nitrous would also seem to be suited for a smaller rider (I'm thinking height of center of gravity rather than weight).

What does "tullebuk" mean?

 

[qcanoe]

There is no such thing as a "bogus" patent. Decisions by the Patent Office are like decisions by the Supreme Court or the Pope. If you've got a patent, you've got a patent, and no one can infringe on it for any reason.

If decisions by the Patent Office are indeed like decisions by the Supreme Court or the Pope, then many would agree that it's very possible for them to be bogus.

 

[Steve from JH]

If decisions by the Patent Office are indeed like decisions by the Supreme Court or the Pope, then many would agree that it's very possible for them to be bogus.

You might think them wrong but they're final--unless the entities involved change their own minds.

 

[derby]

ICT has a very wide range of compliance and covers between 25 and 50% of common 4-bar usage before and after the patents were issued.

The Ellsworth versions of ICT with the same link angles are as effective as faux-bars for pedaling and faux-bars with rim brakes for braking.

I've found the Truth and Id bikes ride rather awkward in handling, they squat and bob a lot when pedaling hard (without using firm platform damping), but they do climb well in moderately rough terrain and have a very compliant smaller bump feel, but don't pedal as well with good handling in larger bumps as FSR and DW-Links. And they dive more than most bikes when braking, reducing traction.

For example I recently demoed a 575 and although the path is virtually the same as the Id, it pedals with much less bob and brakes with better handling without using firm damping. The shock leverage is much more advanced in physics on the 575 for the use of the same rather pedaling bump compliant path.

Smaller and lighter rider and women probably have better pedaling and handling effects on Ellsworth ICT bikes than my higher weight center.

ICT appears to be hype when compared to other better performing bikes. ICT is certainly irrelevant to consider when designing high performance suspension bicycles.

- ray

 

[tscheezy]

...and so we have served our purpose and generated the (un)requested conflicting commentary....

You're welcome.

Next: can Dog create a stone that Dog cannot lift??

 

[Steve from JH]

...and so we have served our purpose and generated the (un)requested conflicting commentary....

You're welcome.

Next: can Dog create a stone that Dog cannot lift??

Did you hear about the dislexic, agnostic insomniac who sat up all night wondering if there is a dog?

 

[Steve from JH]

I've found the Truth and Id bikes ride rather awkward in handling, they squat and bob a lot when pedaling hard (without using firm platform damping)

Smaller and lighter rider and women probably have better pedaling and handling effects on Ellsworth ICT bikes than my higher weight center.

- ray

My Id does not bob at all from seated pedaling, even rather rough seated pedaling. It's equipped with an RP3 used almost always in the (-) position that has been modified by PUSH to have even less compression damping in that position than stock.

I guess I must be a girly man. I'm definitely not small.

 

[Trevor!]

...and so we have served our purpose and generated the (un)requested conflicting commentary....

You're welcome.

Next: can Dog create a stone that Dog cannot lift??

 

[Backmarker]

Your second set of hypothetical examples is better.

My first example wasn't intended to be an accurate account of what happened. It was intended to be a little bit of truth and a little bit of humor. However, I did choose that particular example for a reason. It is an example where a pivot location was changed for a reason other than suspension performance. That change also moved the location of the IC. If DT was a staunch advocate of ICT, wouldn't the location of the IC take precedence over a bit of drivetrain noise?
.

I think Turner does believe the ICT setup is better. He just would probably explain it in different terms. He doesn't seem to like to get too much into theory anyway, does he?

When you say ICT setup, are you talking about ICT theory, or the configuration of the linkage that results? I think based on his recent designs, it's pretty obvious that the latter is true. The former is debatable, but since he's not saying, we will probably never know. Besides, there are probably some real marketing advantages to be gained from licensing ICT.
.

There is no such thing as a "bogus" patent. Decisions by the Patent Office are like decisions by the Supreme Court or the Pope. If you've got a patent, you've got a patent, and no one can infringe on it for any reason.

That depends on how you define a bogus patent. I would call any patent based on erroneous claims to be a bogus patent. Legally binding, but bogus none-the-less. Do you think the patent office would grant a patent if they knew up front the claims were erroneous? I wouldn't think so. However, I do find it surprising how little proof seems to be required. ICT isn't the only patent that makes claims without providing any proof. The VPP patent claims that the downward force at the rear axle is highest when the rate of chainstay lengthening is highest, but they don't provide any proof of that claim. The FSR patent is decidedly vague. It really only says something along the lines of: "If you build the linkage like this and put the pivots here, it will pedal and brake real good.". Not much more to it than that really. I guess I'm surprised that more proof of these type of claims isn't required to obtain a patent, but apparently it's not. You are right though, the ICT patent has been granted and is therefore legally binding. However, if I felt that ICT was erroneous, I would be somewhat annoyed if a bike that I bought came with an ICT sticker on it. But, as long as it's not laser etched, then I guess there's no harm done.
.

Are you aware of how close the current Truth and the Nitrous are as far as ICT theory goes? The only real differences are less travel and a falling rate for the Nitrous. The Truth has a flat rate. The Nitrous would also seem to be suited for a smaller rider (I'm thinking height of center of gravity rather than weight).

No, not really. I haven't paid much attention, because I don't put much stock in ICT theory. I think that there are so many other things that have so much more impact on the way the bike rides (for me), that I wouldn't give it any consideration at all if I were choosing between Turner, Titus, Ellsworth, Ventana, etc. Plus, it doesn't claim to do what I want my bike to do anyway.

However, it does appears that the Nitrous is very similar. The Flux and 5-Spot less so. However, I wouldn't conclude that DT is an advocate of ICT theory simply because his bikes have become ICT compliant. I also wouldn't conclude that ICT theory is correct, simply because ICT bikes perform very well.
.

What does "Tullebukk" mean?

It's a Norwegian word. I'm not sure of the exact translation, but it means something like "guy who kids around" or "person who jokes around" or something like that. My nephew started calling me Tullebukk, and since it was always available as screen name, I started using it. However, when I started getting answers in Norwegian, and since I don't know exactly what it means, I decided to change it. But, I don't really like "Backmarker" either, so...