Not sure entirely what I think of that Surly though think I might start to quite like it.


Looks a bit like my SS rigid bike does with about 5lb of mud on each wheel after a winter mudfest ride

That Pugsley would be great in Gourette when the snow's too soft for my narrow spikes.

Is suicide brave? Turners are four bars and Konas are faux bars, everybody knows that. Would anybody buy a Harley with an across the frame four or a flat twin? Now that Turner have dropped the idea the only advantage of four bar is the axle path. Have they forgotten that it isolates the suspension from chain tension and braking forces? Have thay forgotten that the four bar's virtual pivot is well forward of the BB which reduces harshness. Turner just went from highly desirable to cheapskate. If I want a single pivot I'll get a proper one from Kona or Streakx............sermon over.

here here. if i was going to be able to afford a 5 spot, i'd look for the older model now.

and anyway, if someone is looking at buying a turner, are they really going to worry about the extra few quid for the 4-bar? they're going to have a fair bit of cash anyway.

I wouldn't diss Turner too much, it sounds like an uncomfortable business decision on his behalf. As someone who has worked on 4 bar bikes for all his mountain bike career, it doesn't sound like something he'd do lightly. Perhaps Spesh have upped the licence fee too much?

As far as I know (not very far) the normal 15 years for US patents must be up in a few years, so then everyone will have access to the classic 4 bar system. Can anyone in the know confirm this? I expect Dave Turner will be able to build proper 4 bars again and remain (relatively) competitive in his sector.

I have to disagree John, true 4 bars don't eliminate braking and pedalling forces, but they do reduce them to less significant levels compared to single pivots, hence their (generally accepted) better riding characteristics.

That Maverick will be interesting when it comes to sending the shock back for a service....I'd be very concerned about posting the whole rear end of my bike for fear of damage.

I know four bar is generally better thought of than single pivots, but Turner himself obviously isn’t opposed to using singles; the DHR is a linkage driven single pivot. Think I saw an interview with him recently where he said he didn’t feel tied to a particular design, just wanted to use the right one for the job in hand.

Does anyone know how the licensing works? Do Turner/Norco etc. have to pay per bike or per design? If it was the former I can understand a low volume manufacturer having trouble with it, although I agree with Hungry Monkey; I’m sure Turner customers can afford a few quid extra! Norco are still licensing it for ’06 tho.

Had a look on the AMP research site and the patent for the Horst Link was taken out in ’96, so another five years til it expires (if that’s even how it works, I have no idea about patents)

If you buy a Nicolai the licence appears as a separate line in quotes for Nicolai bikes so have a look at the four bar bikes on their site for an idea of what it costs (not much).

Al - I didn't mention pedalling forces only chain tension and braking forces. And the word I used was 'isolate' rather than 'eliminate'. I use a four bar and used a faux bar for a year before that so I'm aware of the limited, but real, benefits of the chain stay pivot.

Sorry John - semantics huh :)

The Specialized patent only applies in the USA and Taiwan (I think!?!), so Norco, who are a Canadian company, don't need to licence the patent from Specialized.

I will know wait to be corrected by someone else.

They do have a little sticker on their chainstays that says its licensed from Specialized i think.

Maybe Norco have to license to sell in the same markets as Specialized or something?

Norco could sell in Canada and elsewhere but not in the US (or Taiwan).

Anyone can make and sell a 4 bar outside the US and Taiwan without paying Spesh, but there would be little point as the US is the biggest single market.

Sometimes its better just to cough up to use the (marginally) better suspension design rather than spend hooches of cash designing your own.

Yes, I believe they need the license to sell them in the USA and/or Taiwan.

It's also possible that they need one to manufacture them it Taiwan too, but not sure about that one.

Cannot believe Turner has changed from a 4 bar, may as well buy a Kona and save some money!!

Turner bikes are still four bar but now dont have a chainstay pivot, I am pretty sure if you masked the back of the bikes up (chainstay link and seatstay link) and set them up with identical kit,I suspect no one on these various chat room forums could tell the difference. Perhaps it could be a test for Mike Davis to do!

Turner bikes are now a 'faux'bar!

Turner has to pay Ellsworth to use the design, or at least have Ellsworth's permission. Turners have recently had ICT stickers on them. I am not suggesting that Turner has copied the design. I expect that suggestion was made by a lawyer. As I understand it, the ICT patent covers not only where the pivot is positioned on the chain stay, but also how the virtual pivot moves as the suspension goes through its travel. In this respect Ellsworth’s ICT differs from FSR.

I am talking about the old horst-link design, not the new TNT 5 Spot.

Is it only the Spot that has been changed?

"Four-bar evangelists will be surprised to learn that it doesn't appear to have made the slightest bit of difference."

I just thought I should re-emphasise what Mike Davis wrote about the TNT 5 Spot... Do you not trust him to know brake jack/chain tension issues when he feels (or doesn't feel) them? ;-)

No ;-) He's a journalist :ç)

#runs for cover and registers on BM with a new IP, e-mail address and pseudo#




















;-) ;-) ;-)