# Why do makers use ball bearings instead of bushings for pivots?



## BadgerOne (Jul 17, 2015)

Just a random thought of the morning. I can think of whole list of reasons to use bushings instead of ball bearings. In motors they often use Oilite bushings on the armature shaft. I know some makers such as Transition (I think) use a bushing or two. They can't get internally contaminated, they can't get knackered as easily during press/pull, they can't do that weird thing bearings do under rapid succession micro rotations in both directions (forget what it is called), they don't need additional maintenance or lubrication, they are cheaper...really I can't think of single reason to use ball bearings instead, yet everyone does. Am I missing something?


----------



## holdendaniels (Jul 25, 2005)

I had a Turner XCE, road 10,000 miles on that bike and never rebuilt the suspension. Never had a single squeak or issue. Turner used bushings instead of ball bearings for all the reasons you mentioned.


----------



## plummet (Jul 8, 2005)

In the 90's pretty much all fs suspension was made of bushings.

They flogged out fast, got sloppy and or were stiff providing stiction. You needed to grease and maintain them often. 

It was a revolution when manufacturers swapped to bearings. All of a sudden you got smooth supple laterally stiff suspension that didn't flog out anywhere near as quick as bushings.

What bushings did survive in mtbs is in shock eye bushings and within shocks and forks themselves.

I think bearings are far better in applications where you cant submerse the bush is a liquid oil bath and you need l smooth low friction movement with side loading.


.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

Bushings suck. Only place on a bike I haven't experienced short life spans is on the one shock eyelet that barely moves. Look up banshee bikes from the late 00's and early 2010's. They had so many pivot bushing issues it almost put them out of business. Even if durability wasn't an issue they tend to have a lot of friction. They are cheap, and light which makes them appealing but they suck.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Those of us who have been around are seriously scared from the use of bushing in pivots in the 90s and early 2000s. Maybe with todays stiffer frames and better tolerances they work but bearings are pretty darn reliable nowadays.


----------



## DeoreDX (Jul 28, 2007)

Lots of locations of the bike suspension where a properly designed, speced, and toleranced bushing would be the cheaper, lighter, and easier to maintain design over a ball bearing. In the early days when lots of poorly designed bike suspension was out there I feel bushings got an undeservingly bad reputation when poor design was the issue. I think a lot of it is market driven now based upon misconceptions. I think a lot of people see "all ball bearing pivots" in the marketing literature and assume that ball bearings are the best design regardless of the load and rotation the pivot actually sees.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

You said they can't become internally contaminated. My experience is grit will find it's way in which doesn't just grind the bushing it can grind whatever pivots inside it. I've worn out a few vault pedal axles because of this. At first I couldn't' figure out why fresh bushings developed play almost instantly then I realized my axles had slowly worn down to the point where fresh bushings still had play. Bearings won't do this even when they are shot. Generally speaking, bearings will grind themselves up to the point of screaming at you to replace them before damaging other components.


----------



## BadgerOne (Jul 17, 2015)

Most of the problems mentioned above existed because builders used the wrong types of bushings, shafts, or designed the suspension poorly. Oilite makes sintered and bronze bushings which do not require lubrication. Use these with either chromed steel or hard anodized aluminum pivot shafts (preferably tubular chromed steel), good design, and a simple dust seal and all of the aforementioned problems go away. I mean, I have no horse in this race, but just looking at it from an engineering perspective. For all I know it could be that bearings are used to reduce the engineering and finishing effort required.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

BadgerOne said:


> Most of the problems mentioned above existed because builders used the wrong types of bushings, shafts, or designed the suspension poorly. Oilite makes sintered and bronze bushings which do not require lubrication. Use these with either chromed steel or hard anodized aluminum pivot shafts (preferably tubular chromed steel), good design, and a simple dust seal and all of the aforementioned problems go away. I mean, I have no horse in this race, but just looking at it from an engineering perspective. For all I know it could be that bearings are used to reduce the engineering and finishing effort required.


I've used olite self lubricating bushings on DMR vault pedals with chromoly steel axles. I found igus plastic bushings longer lasting. Part of the reason is vault seals suck. More robust sealing would extend life for sure, but I'm still not convinced life span would be as long as bearings. I've never replaced the outboard bearing on vaults but I've gone through countless inboard bushings. I suspect you're right in saying bearings allow for sloppier tolerances which is appealing to manufacturers. The bike industry is notorious for sloppy tolerances. PFBB's creak because of sloppy tolerances. DM rings can creak because of tolerances. Facts are we really don't need exacting tolerances for bikes other than certain places and bearings would be a good way to avoid having to tighten things up. We need to bring back threaded BB's as a standard because the industry has proven an unwillingness to tighten BB shell/bb cup tolerances.


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

BadgerOne said:


> Am I missing something?


If you use a bushing the internet will tell you are wrong and the bike is crap...no matter how well you designed it or how well it actually works. Some fights are just not worth it.

A bike designed was asked what's better about their new 4-bar suspension vs. their old single pivot and his reply was "nothing". He just got tired of arguing with people about it online and figured designing a 4-bar system was the easier path to take.

Nothing new here. You can replace "bushing" with whatever tech or design element is not fashionable in MTB at the moment and you'll have the same problem. Even if in your particular situation the unfashionable solution works better.


----------



## AndyD66 (Mar 12, 2013)

I would assume bearings handle lateral shock loading forces better. Is that even a thing?


----------



## Scott O (Aug 5, 2004)




----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

BadgerOne said:


> Just a random thought of the morning. I can think of whole list of reasons to use bushings instead of ball bearings. In motors they often use Oilite bushings on the armature shaft. I know some makers such as Transition (I think) use a bushing or two. They can't get internally contaminated, they can't get knackered as easily during press/pull, they can't do that weird thing bearings do under rapid succession micro rotations in both directions (forget what it is called), they don't need additional maintenance or lubrication, they are cheaper...really I can't think of single reason to use ball bearings instead, yet everyone does. Am I missing something?


They are not cheaper because they require higher precision from the frame in terms of alignment and machining, to do them right with grease ports requires additional considerations. Way easier just to slap a couple skateboard bearings in like most companies do.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

AndyD66 said:


> I would assume bearings handle lateral shock loading forces better. Is that even a thing?


No.

Bushings handle lateral loads much better.


----------



## AndyD66 (Mar 12, 2013)

Jayem said:


> No.
> 
> Bushings handle lateral loads much better.


ok.

good to know.


----------



## Pisgah (Feb 24, 2006)

I owned a FS bushing bike once....ONCE. It was a Psycle Werks Wildhare. I liked how the bike rode, but the bushing experience made me swear-off bushing bikes. The Wildhare was set up in a way that the movement of the rear end always rubbed the bushings. Eventually, the bushings ate away at the aluminum frame, which resulted in (what I called) perma-play. It was a headache. Perhaps other bushing designs avoid my problem, but the experience put a bad taste in my mouth.


----------



## AndyD66 (Mar 12, 2013)

Pisgah said:


> I owned a FS bushing bike once....ONCE. It was a Psycle Werks Wildhare. I liked how the bike rode, but the bushing experience made me swear-off bushing bikes. The Wildhare was set up in a way that the movement of the rear end always rubbed the bushings. Eventually, the bushings ate away at the aluminum frame, which resulted in (what I called) perma-play. It was a headache. Perhaps other bushing designs avoid my problem, but the experience put a bad taste in my mouth.


That is the kind of thing I was assuming would happen. I guess you can tighten the design engineering to avoid that. 

It seems like the apocraphyl engineer's story about the russian space pencils to my amateur ears..


----------



## MSU Alum (Aug 8, 2009)

My son had a Giant Reign 26er with bushings. The bushings had to be replaced.
I have a Giant Trance 29 with bearings. The bearings had to be replaced.


----------



## AndyD66 (Mar 12, 2013)

MSU Alum said:


> My son had a Giant Reign 26er with bushings. The bushings had to be replaced.
> I have a Giant Trance 29 with bearings. The bearings had to be replaced.


Could and average person have replaced one or the other of them more readily by themselves? 

When we were younger bike engineering was much less developed - but as a 14 year kid with an avergae set of garage tools I could rebuild replace or repair every moving or distinct part on my bikes. Today it's much more likely that I have to buy a whole new component AND pay to have it installed. 

The tools cost more than the parts they service etc etc..


----------



## MSU Alum (Aug 8, 2009)

AndyD66 said:


> Could and average person have replaced one or the other of them more readily by themselves?
> 
> When we were younger bike engineering was much less developed - but as a 14 year kid with an avergae set of garage tools I could rebuild replace or repair every moving or distinct part on my bikes. Today it's much more likely that I have to buy a whole new component AND pay to have it installed.
> 
> The tools cost more than the parts they service etc etc..


The bushings cost $16 to replace. Parts and labor.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

MSU Alum said:


> My son had a Giant Reign 26er with bushings. The bushings had to be replaced.
> I have a Giant Trance 29 with bearings. The bearings had to be replaced.


Did you clean and repack the bearings or just run until done? Lubricating pivot bushings often just leads to attacking dirt which kills them faster than left dry whereas you can rehab bearings sometimes for the life of the frame.


----------



## MSU Alum (Aug 8, 2009)

Years ago, no maintenance on the Reign bushings, just noticed side to side movement. On the Trance I didn't notice it at all until the shock was removed for service and they were frozen up. They were replaced with new sealed bearings.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

vikb said:


> If you use a bushing the internet will tell you are wrong and the bike is crap...no matter how well you designed it or how well it actually works. Some fights are just not worth it.
> 
> A bike designed was asked what's better about their new 4-bar suspension vs. their old single pivot and his reply was "nothing". He just got tired of arguing with people about it online and figured designing a 4-bar system was the easier path to take.
> 
> Nothing new here. You can replace "bushing" with whatever tech or design element is not fashionable in MTB at the moment and you'll have the same problem. Even if in your particular situation the unfashionable solution works better.


There's no difference between single piv and 4bar? Tell that to my rear brake. Do you ride FS bikes?


----------



## EVgEEk (Jan 8, 2015)

I've owned bikes with both bearings and bushings in the linkage. Bearings in a 2015 Specialized Epic, and some of those bearings were a complete nightmare to remove/service/replace. I have also owned an Ibis RipmoAF for about a year now, and it has bushings in some of the linkage points; super easy to maintain. We will see how they fare over time, but I am enjoying them.


----------



## AndyD66 (Mar 12, 2013)

MSU Alum said:


> The bushings cost $16 to replace. Parts and labor.


 Good info.. thx.


----------



## response3 (Mar 4, 2007)

Back in the 90s and early 2000s, Dave Turner of Turner bikes was the most outspoken advocate for bushings and he did a lot of research and testing on the subject. I had a Turner downhill bike with bushings, and didn’t have any issues other than they could occasionally get squeaky and need a little bit of grease.

His 4 bar linkage designs are basically still in use today, and while I don’t know if bushing technology has improved, I don’t see why they are not used today given the design hasn’t fundamentally changed.


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

There is no best way...they are just different.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

slimat99 said:


> There's no difference between single piv and 4bar? Tell that to my rear brake. Do you ride FS bikes?


The argument that a totally free floating brake is better is arguable, as some squat is beneficial to keep the rear end from stink-bugging. Otherwise, kinematics with single-ring systems are just as good and in fact, they've been flattening the anti-squat curve with horst link designs to actually replicate single-pivots as of late.

Now, if by 4-bar you did not mean FSR/horst, then disregard, but I assume you do by the brake comment. A 4-bar is not inherently a horst/FSR or even a parallel link and can be a single-pivot design with linkages, but again, for your definition I assumed you meant FSR/horst.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

Jayem said:


> The argument that a totally free floating brake is better is arguable, as some squat is beneficial to keep the rear end from stink-bugging. Otherwise, kinematics with single-ring systems are just as good and in fact, they've been flattening the anti-squat curve with horst link designs to actually replicate single-pivots as of late.
> 
> Now, if by 4-bar you did not mean FSR/horst, then disregard, but I assume you do by the brake comment. A 4-bar is not inherently a horst/FSR or even a parallel link and can be a single-pivot design with linkages, but again, for your definition I assumed you meant FSR/horst.


Just commenting on how there are differences. Homeboy said there are no differences between single piv and 4bar people just want 4bar. People can argue about what they prefer, but you can't argue there are no differences.


----------



## Kmccann137 (Jul 10, 2017)

I also have the ripmo af and I think the bushings are the only thing that they warranty for life. Probably not hard to deal with.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

slimat99 said:


> Just commenting on how there are differences. Homeboy said there are no differences between single piv and 4bar people just want 4bar. People can argue about what they prefer, but you can't argue there are no differences.


There is a well known manufacturer that stated they "had to" produce a horst-link bike, because it's what "people wanted", despite no quantifiable benefit, actually a slight loss of lateral rigidity due to the HL pivot location. The point was how ill-informed the masses were and how something that was "just as good" would not sell due to perception...vs. reality. I'm sure this has happened many times, but this was referring to a specific situation and the description Vikb gives exactly matches what I heard through other channels with the same. It's not the one with the 6x8 linkage either


----------



## CLDSDL43 (Sep 15, 2021)

Santacruz HT. Replaced both shock bushings twice. Pivot bearings still solid as new. Not really what topic is discussing but that's my experience. (Will add: shock bushings are cheap and easy to replace).
Only other experience with bushings was single pivot Catamount in 90's. Original bushing developed slop quickly. Out of business by then and couldn't get replacement.


----------



## eri (Sep 4, 2012)

The ball bearings on my old yeti would corrode out in a single winter and they were expensive and quite difficult to replace, was extremely touchy pressing those little things into their holes in the carbon fiber. On the third replacement I tried wiping the seals with grease but it made no difference and the ball bearings were brown boogers in less than a year.

I have metal bushings in my car's suspension, use a zirc to press new grease through every few months, they've lasted 7 years now of daily driving and they're still smooth as silk. I know some aftermarket suspension bushings for cars are now made of a new plastic that is supposed to last forever and doesn't need lube but I'm sort of skeptical. Maybe?

Of course I'd be fine with bushings that last forever without maintenance, but if I had a choice I'd want ball bearings with a grease zirc to evict the water and dirt using new grease. Ball bearings are great and so are zircs.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

So as some posters have brought up, some older bikes had some really crappy bushings, whether teflon impregnated, brass, DU or whatever. The better ones had IGUS bushings and for limited rotation situations, bushings are usually the better deal. To expand on what was said about about Turner, he looked into this and came up with tapered bearings being the best solution, but being radically expensive and bushings being next down on the list, proper bushings that is. It's worth stating that some bearings, like needle bearings, have no torsional ability, they need to be combined with a bushing still for this. And to further muddy the water, a bushing is a kind of bearing, although most people thing "balls" when thinking of bearings. The precision IGUS bushings gave exceptional lateral rigidity, something that bearings just can't really do, again unless it's a needle+bushing or tapered bearing setup. I ran my turners (multiple) for years and years. Ball bearings are generally problematic in limited rotation situations, they tend to impact the same spots over and over and not really rotate much, so the wear becomes very localized and the grease doesn't really circulate. In other words, these are generally meant to spin at hundreds to thousands of RPMs over full rotations, not 20 or 30 degrees. With any bearing or bushing, when riding it "loose" it tends to impact the hole over and over again and eventually ovalize the hole, bad news whether it's bearings or bushings. A properly engineered bearing is fine, but too many manufacturers just put in crap stuff that isn't really engineered to deal with the realties of the application, so it craps out in a season or less. One of the worst was my specialized era-described above, where the entire seat stay was basically a wear item, because they made the bearings non-removable. It's frustrating when stuff is so crappy engineered, either under-sized, bad quality/precision, etc. It's definitely more about this rather than bushing or bearing.


----------



## steadite (Jan 13, 2007)

I had 2 Turners with bushings. The Achilles heel was definitely the “seals”…the main pivot bushings would get contaminated at the thrust surfaces with sand and start scoring, then the rear end would have a lot of side-to-side play—it would get really floppy.

I spent way more than $500 maintaining the bushings on those bikes over the course of 5 years or so. Thinking about it, I’m sure I spent $1000.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

Bushings make a ton of sense in pivots that see small movements and high loads. Done right they will last much longer than a bearing in those applications. The bushings in my 5 Spot are 7 years old, operate smoothly, and are very stiff laterally without even the slightest hint of play. They get caked in mud and washed off dozens of times every year. 

Servicing them is easy (inject grease in through the zerk fittings) and pulling them out, cleaning and putting them back in (or installing new ones) is easier than replacing bearings and requires no special tools. 

After my experience with bushings, I am surprised high end bikes don’t use them more often for high stress, low movement pivots.

As someone mentioned earlier, they do require tighter tolerances to work well.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

steadite said:


> I had 2 Turners with bushings. The Achilles heel was definitely the “seals”…the main pivot bushings would get contaminated at the thrust surfaces with sand and start scoring, then the rear end would have a lot of side-to-side play—it would get really floppy.
> 
> I spent way more than $500 maintaining the bushings on those bikes over the course of 5 years or so. Thinking about it, I’m sure I spent $1000.


That really sucks. 

I remember taking apart my 6pack after 2-3 years and the main pivot one was totally fine, the rear horst link ones were not bad, but loose enough I could push them out by hand, so I replaced them, even though it wasn't necessary. I did use the grease-ports though and pump some grease in there every few months. Riding in AZ with lots of sand.


----------



## r-rocket (Jun 23, 2014)

One of my older bikes is a mid-90's short travel Horst link with bushings. The bike maker said not to lubricate the bushings with anything ever, so I haven't. Still original bushings, no signs of wear. But I think that has only been working for this long because the short travel doesn't require too much rotation. 

The frame is a precise hand built frame and the bushings are precise, but the short travel also means it only needs to be precise for a small range of motion. It is also a very stiff hand welded rear triangle, which means the frame carries the lateral load and not the bushings. I wouldn't want bushings in a carbon rear triangle that is designed to flex as part of the suspension travel.

Everything works slower too. The shock won't open up fast high speed valving and suck up a fast hard square hit. So the bushings don't see fast rotation. Same with small bump compliance. The shock doesn't do fast small bump compliance, so the bushings don't have to either.

I think things changed because things changed, and bushings got left behind when things changed.


----------



## uncajohn (Jan 17, 2006)

There’s a number o variants to be considered.



Firstly.

The suspension designs have been surely improved. The early designs, mostly using bushings, were quite flexy, introducing side-by-side loads over narrow (short) axles. Now we have more solid systems.



Many designs using bushings, adopted the “cheapest” solutions on seals.



I believe that if we re-introduce bushings into today’s systems they will work way better that we do remember. Here’s a list of things to consider:



-Bushings need higher tolerances to work properly than bearings. (that still means more expensive jigs for the mass manufacturers). Remember that after welding a frame on the jig it needs to be re-aligned!

-Bushings work better on partially rotating movement (not complete rounds) than bearings. But when the rotating percentage increases, approaching full circle, bearings start gaining over them.

So using bushing on pedal axles seems like a mistake, driven by the grammarophobic tendencies of the bicycling press…!

(the bike press is to be blamed for several hold-backs of the bicycle evolution! The same people that used to make fun of the early suspension forks, wider tires, slopping top tubes, condemning them as “motorbike-like”, now praise them!

-Bushings, IF DESIGNED PROPERLY, have a better distribution of loads that bearings. Bearings, tend to centralize all loads over the central ball…



So,

-For the industry, adopting bearings I a money-wise decision. Cheaper assembly jigs and less machining on the axle chassis.



From my experience it is all upon a mixture of proper designing, proper machining and choosing the correct part. Following thing, bushings are way better for the majority of the designs than bearings.



Some examples from experience:



-My San Andreas and My MC SIN, use ball bearings. I do change them at least once a year, as they introduce play. The bearings, are working on the same part of a full circle for all that period, etching the bearing faces…



-My old GT LTS team used bushings. Not a problem ever.



-My prototype bike, used synthetic bushings (custom made. If I am to redesign it I would go for IGUS). Some of them were quite huge!(the BB was also a ling axle…). As it was an early prototype, I didn’t bother to seal those.

Not a problem at all! (but it was a CF bike with CNC machined links, assembled on a CNC machined table, that looked like PVD’s system.

No misalignment here.



One more note.

If I am correct, motion France used to use full sealed bushings on their forks. The converted to bearing in order to lower manufacturing costs…



UncaJohn



Links:

www.prototype.gr

The SKYNET Master Plan | Peter Verdone Designs

https://www.igus.com/info/plain-bearings-replace-metal-bearings-ca


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

BadgerOne said:


> Most of the problems mentioned above existed because builders used the wrong types of bushings, shafts, or designed the suspension poorly. Oilite makes sintered and bronze bushings which do not require lubrication. Use these with either chromed steel or hard anodized aluminum pivot shafts (preferably tubular chromed steel), good design, and a simple dust seal and all of the aforementioned problems go away. I mean, I have no horse in this race, but just looking at it from an engineering perspective. For all I know it could be that bearings are used to reduce the engineering and finishing effort required.


I really think that bushings failed and had stiction because they were never sealed as well as ball bearings are.
They were probably undersized in most cases, too.
I think if the bushings had the correct seals and protection from contamination, they would be better and last longer and cost less than ball bearings in every bike-related application.
I think there was even a bushing hub that someone tried once, but as soon as you get dirt in it, it grinds itself to bits.

-F


----------



## BadgerOne (Jul 17, 2015)

Jayem said:


> That really sucks.
> 
> I remember taking apart my 6pack after 2-3 years and the main pivot one was totally fine, the rear horst link ones were not bad, but loose enough I could push them out by hand, so I replaced them, even though it wasn't necessary. I did use the grease-ports though and pump some grease in there every few months. Riding in AZ with lots of sand.


Slightly OT, but the AZ moon dust is murder. Coats and gets into absolutely everything, and has a high silica content. Sucks lube right off the chain, plus just makes a mess of things. Still figuring out how to manage it.


----------



## BadgerOne (Jul 17, 2015)

Fleas said:


> I really think that bushings failed and had stiction because they were never sealed as well as ball bearings are.
> They were probably undersized in most cases, too.
> I think if the bushings had the correct seals and protection from contamination, they would be better and last longer and cost less than ball bearings in every bike-related application.
> I think there was even a bushing hub that someone tried once, but as soon as you get dirt in it, it grinds itself to bits.
> ...


Agreed. A bushing hub is pretty misguided IMO, since applications like hubs are precisely where ball bearings excel.


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

BadgerOne said:


> Slightly OT, but the AZ moon dust is murder. Coats and gets into absolutely everything, and has a high silica content. Sucks lube right off the chain, plus just makes a mess of things. Still figuring out how to manage it.


In TN and GA the dirt has mica in it. Not a big problem when dry, but if you ride in the rain you can say goodbye to your brake pads, cogs, chain, and any poorly sealed bearings. You really need to keep after it.

-F


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

steadite said:


> I had 2 Turners with bushings. The Achilles heel was definitely the “seals”…the main pivot bushings would get contaminated at the thrust surfaces with sand and start scoring, then the rear end would have a lot of side-to-side play—it would get really floppy.
> 
> I spent way more than $500 maintaining the bushings on those bikes over the course of 5 years or so. Thinking about it, I’m sure I spent $1000.


Wow that is the polar opposite of my experience. The pivots on my 2012 Turner 5-Spot have been the most robust of any of the 6 FS frames I’ve owned since 1999, and it has seen the worst conditions (mud and water).

As far as contamination, If I squirt some grease in the zerk fittings, then grease is slowly working its way out past the seals, pushing out contaminates.

I bought a bushing kit about 3 years ago thinking I would need it soon (the frame had about 4 years on it). Last winter I tore down the frame intending to replace them, but they were in perfect condition. So I re-used them.

Maybe mud and water works differently than the desert dust?


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

response3 said:


> Back in the 90s and early 2000s, Dave Turner of Turner bikes was the most outspoken advocate for bushings and he did a lot of research and testing on the subject. I had a Turner downhill bike with bushings, and didn’t have any issues other than they could occasionally get squeaky and need a little bit of grease.
> 
> His 4 bar linkage designs are basically still in use today, and while I don’t know if bushing technology has improved, I don’t see why they are not used today given the design hasn’t fundamentally changed.


I rode Turners for 18 years, the bushings worked great. When the carbon bikes came out Dave switched to bearings, citing the performance had improved with modern bearing designs. I suspect part of it was also that tolerances are harder to hold with carbon, where aluminum can easily be put in a jig and the hole sized and aligned. You see it with Ibis where some frames are using bushings in certain pivots and people are having binding issues. Keep in mind, a Turner aluminum frame was about $3000 a decade ago, likely part of that was the labor involved in making sure all the alignments were spot on.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

My counter to those saying tight tolerances and limited rotation will provide long life spans would be shock eyelets. I've never used shock bushings that lasted regardless of the design. Needle and cartridge bearings last much longer and we're talking about similar or less rotation than pivots. Anyone that has swapped eyelet bushings to bearings knows how much friction is freed up too. Shock bearings offer much lighter breakaway. It's hard for me to see how pivot bushings can offer similar breakaway to bearings but I never owned a turner which seem to be the pinnacle of pivot bushing design. I always wanted a 6pack but when they went faux bar I went with kona instead.


----------



## prj71 (Dec 29, 2014)

kapusta said:


> Maybe mud and water works differently than the desert dust?


Most definitely. And it also true as far as chains, derailleurs, cassettes, chain rings and brake pads are concerned.

There was a MTB race around here a few years ago...middle of the race it started raining...by the end of the race all of the mud and water destroyed everyones chains, cassettes, brakes and a few derailleurs. Brakes were almost the worse...wore the pads right down to nothing and people had no brakes.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

prj71 said:


> Most definitely. And it also true as far as chains, derailleurs, cassettes, chain rings and brake pads are concerned.
> 
> There was a MTB race around here a few years ago...middle of the race it started raining...by the end of the race all of the mud and water destroyed everyones chains, cassettes, brakes and a few derailleurs. Brakes were almost the worse...wore the pads right down to nothing and people had no brakes.


Right, that is what I would expect (mud and water are harder on bushings). However my comment is in reference to the current conversation which seems to indicate the opposite.

Desert Dust guy is going through $1K of Turner bushings in 5 years (which would mean replacing several times a year). Meanwhile I am getting mine wet and muddy and getting 7 years out of them.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

The dust here is incredibly fine. It's also, locally, from mostly volcanic rock. It's pretty abrasive, and it gets everywhere (including inside Nalgene bottles IME).


----------



## steadite (Jan 13, 2007)

kapusta said:


> Desert Dust guy is going through $1K of Turner bushings in 5 years (which would mean replacing several times a year). Meanwhile I am getting mine wet and muddy and getting 7 years out of them.


haha, Wisconsin, not desert. It’s extremely sandy here.

the cost wasn’t replacing the bushings themselves, those were cheap, it’s that the DW link would get abrasion from the sand (again, between the drive-side thrust bearing and the link). Those links were >$100 a pop as I recall, and yes, it was multiple replacements/year.


----------



## .WestCoastHucker. (Jan 14, 2004)

slimat99 said:


> There's no difference between single piv and 4bar? Tell that to my rear brake. Do you ride FS bikes?


assuming it's not a Horst or Lawwill, your brake certainly can't tell the difference, but your shock can...


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

I had several bushing bikes back in the day. Rocky Mountain Elements, a Slayer and a DH Race. Titus Quasi Motos and a Moto Lite. The all were sloppy side to side. It wasn't until I had a Ventana with bearings that I found out what a stiff frame was. It's 15 years old and still has no slop and there's no grittiness in the bearings despite never have been serviced. The rear end still cycles as the day it was new easily 10,000+ miles later. It does have the quad bearing option though. Four bearings at every pivot in the rockers and chainstay.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

slimat99 said:


> My counter to those saying tight tolerances and limited rotation will provide long life spans would be shock eyelets. I've never used shock bushings that lasted regardless of the design. Needle and cartridge bearings last much longer and we're talking about similar or less rotation than pivots. Anyone that has swapped eyelet bushings to bearings knows how much friction is freed up too. Shock bearings offer much lighter breakaway. It's hard for me to see how pivot bushings can offer similar breakaway to bearings but I never owned a turner which seem to be the pinnacle of pivot bushing design. I always wanted a 6pack but when they went faux bar I went with kona instead.


Well just how fast are you going through shock eyelets? That all seems highly abnormal to me.


----------



## slimat99 (May 21, 2008)

Jayem said:


> Well just how fast are you going through shock eyelets? That all seems highly abnormal to me.


 Every few months I would get play when it was top hat style with DU, a little longer with composite bushings. Maybe you think I said I wear them out every week or something? I'm sure you've worn out your fair share. The are wear items. At least the one that actually moves. I don't believe I've ever developed play on the side that barely moves. 

Replacing the active bushing with bearings has saved me a fair amount of money over the years. When we used DU that cost a buck it was no big deal, but composite kits cost way too much to be replacing a few times a year when there are alternatives that will last much longer while providing smoother action.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

slimat99 said:


> Every few months I would get play when it was top hat style with DU, a little longer with composite bushings. Maybe you think I said I wear them out every week or something? I'm sure you've worn out your fair share. The are wear items. At least the one that actually moves. I don't believe I've ever developed play on the side that barely moves.
> 
> Replacing the active bushing with bearings has saved me a fair amount of money over the years. When we used DU that cost a buck it was no big deal, but composite kits cost way too much to be replacing a few times a year when there are alternatives that will last much longer while providing smoother action.


I'd wager you are talking about IGUS bushings and not old-school DU ones, but I digress. If you are going through them just every couple months, you got a poorly designed bike. Yes, they are wear items, but they shouldn't be wearing anywhere near that fast. Yeah, even every few months is still way to fast to be wearing out those bushings, riding every day, doing park, DH stuff, 50 mile rides, etc. Plus, good bushing systems like we are talking about here would have grease-ports, be well-designed and manufactured, etc.


----------



## CLDSDL43 (Sep 15, 2021)

milehi said:


> I had several bushing bikes back in the day. Rocky Mountain Elements, a Slayer and a DH Race. Titus Quasi Motos and a Moto Lite. The all were sloppy side to side. It wasn't until I had a Ventana with bearings that I found out what a stiff frame was. It's 15 years old and still has no slop and there's no grittiness in the bearings despite never have been serviced. The rear end still cycles as the day it was new easily 10,000+ miles later. It does have the quad bearing option though. Four bearings at every pivot in the rockers and chainstay.


Ventana! Yes. Still have an x5 that is tight. Saltamontes before that. No problems with bearings on it either.


----------



## SteveF (Mar 5, 2004)

I remember back in the late 90's when the question was "why is X company still using bushings, we want cartridge bearings! I've owned bikes featuring both, they've all been fine.


----------



## prj71 (Dec 29, 2014)

steadite said:


> haha, Wisconsin, not desert. It’s extremely sandy here.


Depends which part of the state you are in. I'm in the northern half...more rocks and mud when things get wet.


----------



## phantoj (Jul 7, 2009)

I have an old 2000 Diamondback that used IGUS bushings, fun fact - you can order all the bushings you need for it from IGUS even now. Anyway, the old D-back used a gray bushing, I don't remember what IGUS called it, but I believe they prefer a different formulation for mountain bikes - it's a tan colored bushing that you might see on shock eyelets.

On my Diamondback, I got the original bushings wet and they started squeaking, apparently one drawback of the gray bushings is they absorb water and swell...


----------



## Velorangutan (Aug 28, 2012)

I skimmed through this thread. I didn't see anyone mention Ibis. They use bushings on the link connecting the chainstay to the bb area. There are two bushings which are super easy to service. 

Ibis must have figured something out because they are trouble free and their bikes consistantly are held as golden models in suspension performance. Ibis also offers free lifetime bushing replacement to the original owner. 

I did own a titus racer X back in the day which used bushings at the rear axle/chainstay pivot. Those seemed to creak and need cleaning or replacement everyonce in a while.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

Velorangutan said:


> I skimmed through this thread. I didn't see anyone mention Ibis. They use bushings on the link connecting the chainstay to the bb area. There are two bushings which are super easy to service.
> 
> Ibis must have figured something out because they are trouble free and their bikes consistantly are held as golden models in suspension performance. Ibis also offers free lifetime bushing replacement to the original owner.
> 
> I did own a titus racer X back in the day which used bushings at the rear axle/chainstay pivot. Those seemed to creak and need cleaning or replacement everyonce in a while.


Yes, they understand that bearings and bushings are better for different applications. Bushings can work better in high load, low movement applications. Like the lower link in some DW-Link designs. These discussions around bushing vs bearing that do not differentiate high movement from low movement are not very useful. Its like debating about shoes without knowing what sport they are for.

Someone earlier mentioned shock bushing vs needle bearings. Again, it has to do with how much movement there is. When I bought the needle bearing kit for my 5-Spot from RWC, they told me straight up it was a waste of money to buy one for the lower shock mount because there was so little movement. So I just got one for the top.


----------

