# Anyone going to try the Turner Nitrous for their 2005 Race bike?



## jtc1 (Apr 13, 2004)

From what I have read so far, this bike seems very light and purpose built for XC race - any thoughts?


----------



## Trevor! (Dec 23, 2003)

I'm kinda wondering the same myself. But the price of $2250 or so (I think thats it) is a little steep even if it is a Turner.


----------



## Hardtailforever (Feb 11, 2004)

*Unless you get paid to ride...*

Sounds like it's so purpose built that it was never designed to last. Unless you get paid to ride your bike, you'll never come out on top when you spend 2G on a bike frame and it breaks in less than 3 years. I'm a small guy (150 soaking wet) and things with weight limits still scare me, because they simply aren't as durable as stuff that's designed for all riders.

If you crash it hard while racing, you still need to cross the line. Hard to do that if you snap or bend a seatstay or chainstay.

Go with a hardtail, eh?

HTF


----------



## jtc1 (Apr 13, 2004)

*FS still faster for me*

For me, I have proven, with a watch, over and over that I am faster on single track when on a light Full Suspension rig. Others may differ, and I certainly dont want to get into a pro choice vs. pro-life type of never ending debate of hardtail vs. FS. So I will look to find a fast, light FS rig for 05. 
I think the Nitrous is stronger than we think - and the weight limit is to make sure the target consumer is buying it rather than the freerider, clydsdale, etc...


----------



## danK (Jan 15, 2004)

Trevor! said:


> I'm kinda wondering the same myself. But the price of $2250 or so (I think thats it) is a little steep even if it is a Turner.


The price is ridiculous. There, I said it. That said, I would presume the riders fast enough to "need" one are gonna get it at some screaming sponsorship deal. I should have studied marketing. Obviously lots of money in it.


----------



## JmZ (Jan 10, 2004)

*Might be just a race bike...*



jtc1 said:


> For me, I have proven, with a watch, over and over that I am faster on single track when on a light Full Suspension rig. Others may differ, and I certainly dont want to get into a pro choice vs. pro-life type of never ending debate of hardtail vs. FS. So I will look to find a fast, light FS rig for 05.
> I think the Nitrous is stronger than we think - and the weight limit is to make sure the target consumer is buying it rather than the freerider, clydsdale, etc...


I was kinda wary because of a line from MBA - "had bend the left seatstay by landing a jump with the rear disc brake locked". Mind you it was regarding a gravity racer, and would be a preproduction item, but probably not the bike I'd buy.

I'm well over the the 165 weight limit, and still have not raced. My bikes gotta last a couple of years, so the Nitrous might not be on my list, at least not for a couple of years... when I see how it holds up. 

Don't normally trust MBA about bike tests, but frame failures and gross problems that come out in a test....

JmZ


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

*More than ridiculous*



danK said:


> The price is ridiculous. There, I said it. That said, I would presume the riders fast enough to "need" one are gonna get it at some screaming sponsorship deal. I should have studied marketing. Obviously lots of money in it.


If people want to pay > $2000 for a design that is 15 years old, weights in the ballpark of many others out there, and has no advantage in performance ... help yourself!

It is indeed just marketing, they could produce the nitrous at sub $1300 (but who would buy it then?)


----------



## Kaparzo (Dec 21, 2003)

It looks sweet, but a racer-x i believe can be built almost just as light, and be just as good. And about 600bucks less.


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

*Racer-X and Genius*



Kaparzo said:


> It looks sweet, but a racer-x i believe can be built almost just as light, and be just as good. And about 600bucks less.


Indeed, who knows what the real weight of the nitrous is, and when comparing apple with appples (e.g. medium to medium same shock) the Racer-X might be wihtin 1/4 pound. Or if you want something new the new scott Genius RS that looks drop dead gorgeous in carbon, 90mm of travel, a sub-5 frame-shock weight (medium), and a has more sophisticated and remote controlled shock (which might be very useful in a racing situtation).


----------



## dparis (Jun 4, 2004)

*Um*

There is no denying it - this is a pro race bike - meant to race AT MOST one season. That is why they can make the tubes so small and get away with it.

So - if you are looking for a frame for one season to race Norba's or any other not too technical race course - then the frame is great bc that is what it is built specificly for.

If you are looking for something you will be able to ride longer than a season and can still ride on more technical trails - this frame is not for you. MBA directly states that and even Turner does also.

I really don't think this is a frame for the mass public - unless you have plenty of money or just need it for a season.


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

dparis said:


> If you are looking for something you will be able to ride longer than a season and can still ride on more technical trails - this frame is not for you. MBA directly states that and even Turner does also.


I have a 5-spot and I know that this is not a "trail" bike. My point is that whoever is doing the marketing at Turner is using all the tricks in the businness: rumors, showing an extra-small bike at interbike with a claimed 4.4. pounds weight, making sure MBA prints the 4.4 frame weight (even if the frame is a medium and it cannnot be that light if the extra-smal is 4.4, and of course MBA does not check), and especially charging an absolute inane premium price for a frame that should be less expensive of the overpriced 5-spot: Turner is not alone for sure in using these tricks but It is not a pretty sight.

All of this for a frame that is equivalent to any other 3-3.5" race bikes on the market: really even if this frame is sub 5lbs, there are plenty others as light, and if you have to count on 200 gram to win a race ...

But it works like a charm: I am ready to bet anything that Tuner would sell LESS Nitrous if the price tag was at $1350.


----------



## johnmyster99 (Mar 2, 2004)

(from a 5-spot owner...)

never has there been a board of such skeptics...

However, I think the price in part reflects just what it takes to produce a frame like this. 

Dave Turner has been talking about the nitrous since May over in the tuner board. In fact, he and Greg (I think Greg is well over 180#, but don't tell anybody) have been riding on them since then. Anyway, according to Dave, most of the weight savings came from really engineering the bike. Analyzing the loads on each part, and designing the bike for those loads. Machining away material from here and there wasn't done blindly, but by first figuring out where it could and couldn't be done. Time spent at the drawing board and running finite element simulations by people who know what they're doing is expensive. But it's what it takes to go lightweight and still have faith in your product.

If you look at the details of the bike, EVERYTHING has been intricately machined. Gussets, shock mounts, bottom bracket mount, dropouts, etc. Machining time is expensive, but it's what you're going to have to do in order to drop the grams. Something certainly NOT done on the cadillac style giant chunks of aluminum that are the dropouts on my epic, or my friend's spyder...

I can't say I've spent quite 2 grand on a frame yet, but really, I'm pretty sure plenty have. How much do litespeed hardtails run? Intense Spyder? S-Works Epic (see plenty of those around)? Ellsworth truth? I'm pretty sure that all those frames run right in that ballpark. 

Will the nitrous sell as much as the 5-spot? Probably not. But really, I can't see why anybody could say that the pricetag is unjustified. That's just what you pay for a California bike from one of the small companies. Otherwise, talk to Giant about an NRS or find a used epic. 

And for all the non-nitrous types, I'm pretty sure that the Flux will be an awesome bike, with awesome (as always) customer service for a bike in that price range.


----------



## TheSherpa (Jan 15, 2004)

johnmyster99 said:


> (from a 5-spot owner...)
> 
> never has there been a board of such skeptics...
> 
> ...


On these boards you gotta learn to wade through the d!cks and skeptics who have no idea what there talking about ala Davide and get to the good stuff. I personally would buy a Nitrous and 200g at a pro level is a lot, even in pro level DH racing.

-TS


----------



## carlos (Jan 12, 2004)

dparis said:


> There is no denying it - this is a pro race bike - meant to race AT MOST one season. That is why they can make the tubes so small and get away with it.
> 
> So - if you are looking for a frame for one season to race Norba's or any other not too technical race course - then the frame is great bc that is what it is built specificly for.
> 
> ...


but why spend all this cash on a FS that is not recomended to technical races?? if you want lightness and no so good performance on technical stuff, get a HT.

im not a turner basher, i was among the first to post about this frame here but im a tad disapointed now.


----------



## johnmyster99 (Mar 2, 2004)

Why would you stay away from technical riding on it? Who made that line up?

Granted, the nitrous is new. Nobody has one. Very few have ridden them. Very few have seen them. Plus, past popular Turners (RFX, O3, Spot, Burner, etc) haven't been really light bikes, but more of trail/durability bikes. Thus, not many people on the weight weenie board are going to have much experience with/on them. They're not going to know much about Turner's history, which is going to make the Nitrous what it will be. So basically, I think you're listening to the wrong people.

Head on over to the Turner board. It's a WAY active board, with lots of great and supportive people on it. On good occasion, Casey (Turner Sales Dept) or Dave (um, Dave Turner) will put in some posts for opinions or suggestions, reccomendations, etc.

Hang out over there, and find out about how much fun people have with their turners, how durable they are, and how great being affiliated with a company like Turner really is.


----------



## velo bum (Jul 1, 2004)

Trevor! said:


> I'm kinda wondering the same myself. But the price of $2250 or so (I think thats it) is a little steep even if it is a Turner.


MSRP - $2095


----------



## AK Chris (Dec 30, 2003)

Here's a pretty good thread that has a lot of detail about the Nitrous. Based on the way Dave Turner does things, it will be great for its intended purpose -- a flyweight XC race machine.

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=16891http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=16891

Ignore Davide, he did nothing but bash the 5-spot for months as overpriced and out of date compared to VPP crap and then went out and bought one.

p.s. I own a 5-spot, if you haven't ridden a Turner then you're talking out your ass about his bikes. They are not like an FSR or a Titus, little geometry differences make a big difference in ride.


----------



## turnerbikes (Apr 12, 2004)

*My 2 cents*

Well you guys sure got my pulse going on a Monday and I need to point out some facts.

The Nitrous frame will retail for $2095, Yes that is expensive and why wouldn't it be if we are going to make 100 of them. Not like all the other models. The cost of developing this frame was second only to the DHR as it shares almost NOTHING with any other models just the Deraileur hanger, pivot kit, and cable guides. Just because it is an old rocker frame does not mean it is cheap to build. This is a US made frame. No marketing BS.

The reason for the 165 pound weight limit is that we do not feel it will give the performance people expect from a Turner if they weight more. Geoff weights 165 pounds, and at 6'2" puts a lot of leverage into the frame. As well as power! After a season of racing on the bike he had no comments to improve pedaling stiffness or descending stiffness. The limit is NOT just because it is light, it is for ride quality. Geoff is 165, so we know it will "feel good" to a racer that weights that much. Not a trail rider, not an adventure racer but a cross country racer who carries nothing and weights under 165.

Heavier racers have the Flux, not much of a penalty for a heavy guy as it is just over a pound more at 5.6 for a medium. The Flux was created just for the heavier racers or trail riders/ racers that are more diverse in their mountain bike useage. Same old rocker frame with 2 completely different parts.

The MBA proto was just that. A Prototype. I wanted to see how light we could go for a race bike. I wanted something to fail. Geoff and Cesar did not bend one seat stay all year. But the lesser riders did, most bent a prototype seat stay. The production seat stay was shown on Geoffs race bike in Vegas and it is a lot stronger. XC racers will not have seat stay problems with the production frame.

If anyone out there wants to bring a truck load of frames by to weight them, give me some notice and I will pay to have the scale freshly calibrated. We can throw any Turner on the scale you want for a comparison. You can photo the test and publish it here if you want.
Please do not throw about other companies frame weights untill you have weighed them on certified scales, I have and there are many "marketing" with false weights.

Happy Trails
David Turner


----------



## Trevor! (Dec 23, 2003)

velo bum said:


> MSRP - $2095


I was closeish I suppose


----------



## jtc1 (Apr 13, 2004)

*Thanks for the post Dave T.*

I appreciate you taking the time to reply. With any new product - there are many opinions and much speculation. Oh, and its true, God gave negative people the strongest vocal cords (or keyboard skills). 
I am considering the Nitrous, though I will need to find one on sale somewhere. My only reservation is that the suspension set-up is so stiff it will cause the return of some hardtal'ish riding habits.


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

One of the magic things about past turner bikes was they have felt more plush than their competition without blowing through travel. I don't know it is attention to shock selection, suspension design, or execution, but that is one thing I prefer over my Burner compared to the Racer-x. If past Turner bikes are any indication, the Nitrous will ride very nicely for a 3" bike.


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

*The usual Turner fanatics*



AK Chris said:


> p.s. I own a 5-spot, if you haven't ridden a Turner then you're talking out your ass about his bikes. They are not like an FSR or a Titus, little geometry differences make a big difference in ride.


 like a few other Turner-cult-member AK-chris is so in love with his idol that it cannot see reality any more. The level of stupidity that goes around the 5-spot is amazing, a great indication of a true fundamentalist cult.

These people will want you to believe that not only the horst-linkkage is the only system in MTB, but that of all horst-links on the planet Turners have some misterious magic quality. Of course there is no agreement within the cult about what is the magic quality: for some is the geometry (some guy last year kept ranting about the marvel of the 74 degree seat tube, and how it made, sigh, for better climbing), for others is that they feel plusher (another sigh), for other is "the telepatic" steering, and so on and so on.. 
They re totally ridiculous positions completely unsopported by facts.Turner, Specialized, a Titus, Nicolai, Extralite, Bianchi (when they made them) KHS, Azonic (even GT besides a more pronounced brake-dive) etc. ride about the same. There is by far more difference due to a different rear shock than due to minute differences in geometry: to state other wise is just bizarre.

The funny thing is that the Turner-clergy get upset if another 5-spot owner simply tells the truth: the 5-spot is a very good bike but many others are as good (but don't get me wrong: it is a very good bike).

Now the Nitrous cames about and here we go again, it is almost pathetic: this is a 3" bike and there are a half-dozen bikes at that weight and travel you can use to race.
But hey, this is a free country, "racers" want to spend $2100 on the nitrous that should cost $1300, based on supposed weight savings of at most 150 grams help yourself. Just don't give me the pro-crap: if you want to win at the pro level grab a hard-tail and save 2 pounds. Eddy Mercks always used relatively heavy frames in respect to other pros ... guess how many races he won.


----------



## Boj (Jan 13, 2004)

turnerbikes said:


> Well you guys sure got my pulse going on a Monday and I need to point out some facts.
> 
> The Nitrous frame will retail for $2095, Yes that is expensive and why wouldn't it be if we are going to make 100 of them. Not like all the other models. The cost of developing this frame was second only to the DHR as it shares almost NOTHING with any other models just the Deraileur hanger, pivot kit, and cable guides. Just because it is an old rocker frame does not mean it is cheap to build. This is a US made frame. No marketing BS.
> 
> ...


Hi Dave,

thanks kindly for posting here.

In order to understand why this board feels the way it does you have to keep in mind that unlike rest of the boards here which are heavily American, this place has overwhelmingly large European contingent and otherwise large international presence.

Other boards and probably a lot of American bicycle market is not aware of what Europeans have to offer, especially in terms of lightweight trickery. Off the top of my head I can think of three FS frames that have *confirmed* weight of ~4.4 lbs for size M, including shock (Scott Strike, Ghost RT Scandium and Extralite F1) and these aren't one season use only frames. There is a good summary about what lightweight FS frames are available in the FAQ sticky thread on the top if you want to read it.

So while on other more American boards Nitrous is the greatest thing since sliced bread, if you include the $2000+ price tag, it just doesn't cut the mustard on this board.

Having said that I am really glad that you did actually go out and engineer this thing professionally and it is a very light bike, I'm sure. However, as a hard core weight weenie, I still feel that the purpose of this frame isn't to please people like me but to take advantage of American bike market largely unaware of what's light or not. Not that I don't think your bike is light, just that you didn't build it with people like me in mind.

Could you tell us what the actual weight of Nitrous is in size M, with shock, and also will it come with V brake mounts at all?


----------



## Slowpoke (Jan 15, 2004)

*There are no other bikes like the Nitrous available anywhere.*



Davide said:


> this is a 3" bike and there are a half-dozen bikes at that weight and travel you can use to race.


There are no other bikes like the Nitrous available for sale in the US. You say there are a half-dozen. I say name one. Name one other true 4-bar bike (not a single pivot or a faux-bar) available today (in the US) that weighs less than 4.5 lb. that doesn't make use of carbon fiber or doesn't make use of a tiny little proprietary shock. The only true 4-bars that I can think of that are even close in weight are the Extralight (tiny proprietary shock), the Amp B3 (which used Carbon stays to get down to that weight and isn't available anymore anyway), and the Ghost Scandium RT (which looks like a very nice bike, but isn't available in the US).

I don't remember reading where anyone has stated or implied that the Nitrous is somehow "better" than any of the other lightweight race bikes that are available today. However, it is unique. If you want an aluminum framed 4-bar that makes use of a standard size shock, there are not any other options that are within a pound of the Nitrous. Add in Turners reputation for building stiff, reliable frames and I don't have any trouble seeing why some people are excited about this bike.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*agree with Davide and Boj...*



jtc1 said:


> From what I have read so far, this bike seems very light and purpose built for XC race - any thoughts?


sorry to kick in but after reading all posts above i can only agree with what Davide says. i remember whe the Nitrous was first shown here i already said it had a "dated" design and is nothing different from many other bikes out there. if i'm right i posted a picture of a italian FRM which even had the same golden colour than the shown Nitrous and its design is 10 years old...anyway - reading about a 165lbs weight limit and reading Dave's comments make me laugh. what should be different if a rider weighs 165+lbs? it flexes because its tubes are too thin. so it won't be stiff as many other designs that don't have a weight limit. why should it feel different? you could always adapt the shock and fork with different settings to compensate for added rider weight...the frame is obviously not so well designed. it may be light but that obviously comes at a price. if they used all their computers they should have come up with a different design anyway. once again-this is a good design BUT it seems when built "light" has it's limitations. so as others already said this is more like a one season racebike which isn't all that bad if you are a sponsored rider...

Boj is absolutely correct that for the US market this may be a light frame but over here we have many different brands that have such weights. nothing too spectacular really.

all those computers should have made for a better frame. it may be a very good design but in this light configurations seems to have its limits which other framemakers don't have.

Turners have a myth and you won't find many Turner riders saying bad things about their bikes. same with Mercedes drivers who pride their german cars...those may be good cars but not better than several others too.


----------



## Slowpoke (Jan 15, 2004)

nino said:


> if i'm right i posted a picture of a italian FRM which even had the same golden colour than the shown Nitrous and its design is 10 years old...


No, you posted a link to an FRM single pivot (ala Trek Fuel). It's easier to make a single pivot lighter (and the FRM is still over a quarter of a pound heavier than the Nitrous). FRM does make a chainstay pivot 4-bar (BeActive), but it's a half pound heavier yet.



nino said:


> Boj is absolutely correct that for the US market this may be a light frame but over here we have many different brands that have such weights. nothing too spectacular really.


Great. Nobody is criticizing those bikes or telling you that you shouldn't be excited about them (or running them down on a website based in your country). If someone were to put a Ghost Scandium RT or FRM 10 HP or Extralight F1 under my Christmas tree, I'd be very excited about it. However, I don't see how a bike that is not available in the US is relevant to US buyers. Why shouldn't they be excited that they now have a lightweight bike available to them?


----------



## Boj (Jan 13, 2004)

Slowpoke said:


> Great. Nobody is criticizing those bikes or telling you that you shouldn't be excited about them (or running them down on a website based in your country). If someone were to put a Ghost Scandium RT or FRM 10 HP or Extralight F1 under my Christmas tree, I'd be very excited about it. However, I don't see how a bike that is not available in the US is relevant to US buyers. Why shouldn't they be excited that they now have a lightweight bike available to them?


First thing is that we haven't established what the frame actually weighs.

From my memory that picture someone posted of it hanging off a scale at a bike show showed 4.4 lbs for a ridiculously small frame. What is Nitrous weight for a medium size with a shock?

Next thing is that all those light frames (Ghost, Extralite etc.) are actually available to the US market and a US weight weenie can get them with relatively little hassle from overseas, so it isn't like Nitrous has now all of a sudden made a lightweight bike available to them.

What is different is that Scott and the company aren't advertized in MBA and like, so nobody in the US knows they or what is available. Turner have built this bike as a marketing strategy to take advantage of this and not because they are dedicated to cause of weight weenism. It shows with the product IMO. Instead of going out to design a innovative, lightweight, light years ahead machine they took an old design, used thinner tubes and slapped a weight limit on it. Hardly groundshaking stuff around here, but I guess it is if you read MBA.

No ill feelings towards Turner though. They are going where the $$ are and don't blame them for it. But Nitrous just won't pass around here, that's all.


----------



## SilverSpot (Apr 23, 2004)

Boj said:


> What is different is that Scott and the company aren't advertized in MBA and like, so nobody in the US knows they or what is available. Turner have built this bike as a marketing strategy to take advantage of this and not because they are dedicated to cause of weight weenism. It shows with the product IMO. Instead of going out to design a innovative, lightweight, light years ahead machine they took an old design, used thinner tubes and slapped a weight limit on it. Hardly groundshaking stuff around here, but I guess it is if you read MBA.
> 
> No ill feelings towards Turner though. They are going where the $$ are and don't blame them for it. But Nitrous just won't pass around here, that's all.


Actually, last months MBA had about 2-3 pages dedicated to Scott bikes. And contrary to your statement, quite a few people here in the US do know about Scott bikes. They just aren't readily available here.

Turner built this bike as a race machine, not a marketing strategy. They saw a need to fill a small but significant hole in their product line and they reacted. Go back and read the Turnerbikes post again. Dave's not known for trying to blow smoke up anyone's a$$ like some other manufacturers (who shall remain nameless). He says what he means and does what he says. Turner designed the Nitrous as a full on XC race bike for the racer, not the weekend warrior. Take a look at most pro racer weights. A bike designed around a 165 lb rider would be OK for most of the field. The design itself is already proven to be one of the best out there. Why mess with a sure thing?

My 5 spot is built for what I do. The Nitrous is built for what a racer does.


----------



## Boj (Jan 13, 2004)

SilverSpot said:


> Actually, last months MBA had about 2-3 pages dedicated to Scott bikes. And contrary to your statement, quite a few people here in the US do know about Scott bikes. They just aren't readily available here.
> 
> Turner built this bike as a race machine, not a marketing strategy. They saw a need to fill a small but significant hole in their product line and they reacted. Go back and read the Turnerbikes post again. Dave's not known for trying to blow smoke up anyone's a$$ like some other manufacturers (who shall remain nameless). He says what he means and does what he says. Turner designed the Nitrous as a full on XC race bike for the racer, not the weekend warrior. Take a look at most pro racer weights. A bike designed around a 165 lb rider would be OK for most of the field. The design itself is already proven to be one of the best out there. Why mess with a sure thing?
> 
> My 5 spot is built for what I do. The NItrous is built for what a racer does.


That's fine but it doesn't change my point.

Building a light bike thanks to 165 lbs weight limit is hardly impressive (and I have read Dave's reply). Considering what their bikes weigh, imagine what Scott or Extralite would come up with if they built with 165 lbs rider weight limit?


----------



## carlos (Jan 12, 2004)

i still dont get it but;

why get a FS to race on norba "fire roads"? im not from the US but i have lots of videos from norba races and 70% of the time its fire roads. no need to ride with full suspension there. i just dont get it when i see "pro" racers runing 100mm forks with disk brakes on fs bikes on dusty fire roads....


----------



## Slowpoke (Jan 15, 2004)

Boj said:


> First thing is that we haven't established what the frame actually weighs.


Ok, no argument from me here. Turner did post pictures of the prototype frames on a scale and they were 4.4 lb for the medium and 4.6 lb for the large. However, the production frames are heavier. Turner has posted all of the weights for all of his bikes on his website. The weights listed for the other bikes match the weights that have been verified elsewhere. He lists the weight of the Nitrous as 4.5 lb, but he doesn't list a size (I think he should). However, one of the things that people like about the company in general, is that they don't BS you. If he says it weighs 4.5 lb. than it weighs 4.5 lb, but it might be a small frame.



Boj said:


> From my memory that picture someone posted of it hanging off a scale at a bike show showed 4.4 lbs for a ridiculously small frame. What is Nitrous weight for a medium size with a shock?


No, it was not a ridiculously small frame. It was a small. The weight you listed (4.4 lb) is for a small Ghost frame as well.



Boj said:


> Next thing is that all those light frames (Ghost, Extralite etc.) are actually available to the US market and a US weight weenie can get them with relatively little hassle from overseas, so it isn't like Nitrous has now all of a sudden made a lightweight bike available to them.


No, they're not. The Ghost and the Extralite both violate Specialized's patent, so I would think that it would be illegal to import them into the country. I don't know of anyone that imports the Ghost. I know that light-bikes claims to import the Extralite, but I don't know how he gets around the legal issue (besides, that tiny little proprietary shock makes the bike uninteresting anyway). Even if you can find a way to sneak one into the country, it's certainly not low hassle and you certainly can't test ride any of them first. Scott bikes have recently (last year) become available in the states. If you are looking for an inactive high-forward single pivot, the Scott Strike might be a reasonable choice. However, if you prefer an active ride, it's not an option.

Besides, the bikes you have listed are some of the nicest, lightest bikes made anywhere in the world. It seems like to me, that that puts the Nitrous in pretty good company.



Boj said:


> What is different is that Scott and the company aren't advertised in MBA and like, so nobody in the US knows they or what is available.


Yes, European bike/component companies do a terrible job of marketing their products in the US. Considering the US is one of the largest markets for MTB products in the world, that seems like a pretty dumb move to me, but it's their choice. The reality is that most US mountain bikers would love to have the opportunity to buy some of these parts, but they can't.



Boj said:


> Turner have built this bike as a marketing strategy to take advantage of this and not because they are dedicated to cause of weight weenism. It shows with the product IMO. Instead of going out to design a innovative, lightweight, light years ahead machine they took an old design, used thinner tubes and slapped a weight limit on it. Hardly groundshaking stuff around here, but I guess it is if you read MBA.


I don't read MBA, so I have no idea what they've said. But I have not heard anyone around here (including Turner) claim that the Nitrous is "an innovative, lightweight, light years ahead machine". I have not heard anyone around here claim that the Nitrous is better in any way than any of the bikes you have listed. I have only seen guys from overseas falling all over themselves attempting to discredit it. Yes, it uses an older, time tested, well proven design. However, that design is still considered by many to be the best available (and is the same design used by the Ghost and the Extralite).

You guys are way off base regarding the weight limit. You've jump to numerous erroneous conclusions. Turner himself stated that his 165 lb rider had no complaints what-so-ever about the stiffness of the frame. It's there as a guildline to help steer people toward the frame that best suits their riding style. I doubt any of the frames you mentioned would hold up to a year of abuse from a typical, aggressive, US trail rider. 4 foot drops and 4.4 lb. frames don't mix.



Boj said:


> No ill feelings towards Turner though. They are going where the $$ are and don't blame them for it. But Nitrous just won't pass around here, that's all.


Nobody is trying to sell you a Nitrous. The original poster lives in the US. He asked if it would be a good choice for him (not for you). None of the bikes you listed are available to him. Yet, you come on here and gloat about the bikes that are available to you, and run down the bike that is available to him. Is that considered classy behavior in your country? It's not in mine. That is what just won't pass around here.

Davide is the worst offender. He makes it sound like there are a half dozen bikes just like the Nitrous available to him (for $1300 no less). Davide lives in the US, so none of those bikes are available to him either. In fact, there aren't any aluminum framed true 4-bar bikes available to him that are within a pound of the Nitrous, and only a handfull of suspension bikes of any type that are under 5 lb.. The Flux may actually be the next lightest 4-bar available.


----------



## Boj (Jan 13, 2004)

Slowpoke said:


> Nobody is trying to sell you a Nitrous. The original poster lives in the US. He asked if it would be a good choice for him (not for you). None of the bikes you listed are available to him. Yet, you come on here and gloat about the bikes that are available to you, and run down the bike that is available to him. Is that considered classy behavior in your country? It's not in mine. That is what just won't pass around here.


Actually I'm from Australia so if bikes I mentioned are available to me, I'd struggle to think they're not available to the US market. I got to go to bed now but we'll see what Dave says about this.


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

*Indeed (and Titus)*



carlos said:


> i still dont get it but;
> 
> why get a FS to race on norba "fire roads"? im not from the US but i have lots of videos from norba races and 70% of the time its fire roads. no need to ride with full suspension there. i just dont get it when i see "pro" racers runing 100mm forks with disk brakes on fs bikes on dusty fire roads....


if you are a serious racer get a costum HT that will fit like a glove at half the price, and save 2 pounds instead of 0-150 grams ...

if you insist on 3" of suspension... at that price ($2100) you can get a costum Titus Racer-X in Titanium (see http://titusti.com/custom_frame.html).


----------



## miles e (Jan 16, 2004)

Slowpoke said:


> I have not heard anyone around here claim that the Nitrous is better in any way than any of the bikes you have listed. I have only seen guys from overseas falling all over themselves attempting to discredit it.


Yeah, that sums up this thread pretty well. Here are some of the highlights:

"never designed to last"
-HardTailForever

"no advantages in performance"
"they could produce the nitrous at sub $1300"
"the Racer-X might be wihtin 1/4 pound"
"weight savings of at most 150 grams"
-Davide

"the Nitrous was first shown here i already said it had a "dated" design and is nothing different from many other bikes out there"
-Nino

This according to guys who have never actually seen a Nitrous in person, much less ridden one or weighed it. Here a few of their contradictory ideas:

-The Nitrous is simultanously too light to withstand any real riding, yet too heavy to be considered light.

-Published weights are worthless, rather we should listen to Davide's guess that it will be within 1/4 pound of the Racer-X.

-Saving "at most 150 grams" offers "no advantage in performance", yet dremelling chain rings, running v brakes (speaking of outdated designs...), and using straws for cable housing are all worthwhile ways to keep your bike light.

-It is ridiculous to pay $2,095 for a frame, because Davide calculates that it "could" be produced sub $1,300, yet no other US manufacturer has been able to produce a sub five pound frame at any price. Turner must not only control MBA (coercing them into publishing a fictional weight), but also the entire cartel of US builders.

-The Turner FSR four bar design is outdated, yet most of these guys ride hardtails, or in Davide's case a Turner.

-Bikes should be as light as possible, but purpose built parts are dumb. All components should be ridiculously light but be able to handle whatever a weekend warrior throws at them.

-Manufacturer suggested weight limits are marketing B.S. Consumers would be better off learning the hard way that the Nitrous was never intended for their 200lb carcass.

And one final quote:
"as a hard core weight weenie, I still feel that the purpose of this frame isn't to please people like me"
-Boj

Exactly.

Okay, now let me offer my response to the original poster: you are right, the bike is very light and is purpose built for XC racing. It is also very expensive but you knew that too. For hammering out two hours on a race course this bike looks like the one to beat. From my experience with Turner I wouldn't have any concerns about strength or stiffness if you are under 165. Turner's are not known for being weak and flimsy, and I imagine that preserving that reputation is a large part of why they are publishing a weight limit for this bike.

Even though I fit the target market of the Nitrous (okay, I am 170lbs, but I do race expert) I would go with the new Turner Flux though. Here is why:
-I have a hardtail to race on smooth courses, and like the idea of 4" of travel for the rough courses we have in New England.
-With the extra travel and strength the Flux seems better suited to solo/duo 24 Hour racing than the Nitrous.
-I would feel compelled to limit the Nitrous to racing, and if I'm going to have a second FS bike I would like to feel okay about taking it out on the trails when I want/need an alternative to my RFX.
-I realize that bike weight does not make the rider, and am not concerned about a 5.6 lb frame slowing me down.

We will see in time how well the frame holds up and how much each size actually weighs, but at this point Turner looks to have left the other US manufacturers in the dust as far as a dedicated XC racing frame goes, and based largely on their track record I would have no qualms about using the frame for its intended purpose.


----------



## miles e (Jan 16, 2004)

whoops


----------



## Pedalfaraway (Jan 19, 2004)

*Fireroads are easy places to take pictures.*

I did 3 Norba races this past season( Sea otter, Snow Summit, Mammoth mountain), and with the exception of the Sea otter course would not even consider racing a hardtail. The downhills at Big Bear (Snow Summit) are fast, rocky, rough, and have lots of small ledges. The climb was on 90% fire road, but a FS bike is a big advantage on the downhills IMHO. The Seven Bridges section of the Mammoth course was like this to a lesser extent, but I was still grateful for that rear shock. 
I think alot of people that race, can only afford on bike of race quality. Sure if I could keep my FS bike and have a sub 20 pound hardtail for the courses that are smooth, and to race short track on I would love to do so. Anyone got $2000 they don't need? 
I would like to disagree with those who think more Nitrous's will be sold for $2000 than $1300. At $1300 it would be a good value compared to it's competition. Alot of the other bikes mentioned in this post do not cost much less than 2000. $1700 for an Sworks epic. I too am a little skeptical of the durabiliy of the frame because of the weight limit. I always thought they put that limit on stuff, so when the frame cracked they could say it is becuase you are too heavy, and are not getting a waranty replacement.


----------



## carlos (Jan 12, 2004)

Pedalfaraway said:


> I did 3 Norba races this past season( Sea otter, Snow Summit, Mammoth mountain), and with the exception of the Sea otter course would not even consider racing a hardtail. The downhills at Big Bear (Snow Summit) are fast, rocky, rough, and have lots of small ledges. The climb was on 90% fire road, but a FS bike is a big advantage on the downhills IMHO. The Seven Bridges section of the Mammoth course was like this to a lesser extent, but I was still grateful for that rear shock.
> I think alot of people that race, can only afford on bike of race quality. Sure if I could keep my FS bike and have a sub 20 pound hardtail for the courses that are smooth, and to race short track on I would love to do so. Anyone got $2000 they don't need?
> I would like to disagree with those who think more Nitrous's will be sold for $2000 than $1300. At $1300 it would be a good value compared to it's competition. Alot of the other bikes mentioned in this post do not cost much less than 2000. $1700 for an Sworks epic. I too am a little skeptical of the durabiliy of the frame because of the weight limit. I always thought they put that limit on stuff, so when the frame cracked they could say it is becuase you are too heavy, and are not getting a waranty replacement.


i didnt said pictures, i said VIDEOS, i have at least 12 videos of norba races, at least 10 of europeans races like european championships,swisspowercup and lots of videos from world championships and other stuff.

the norba races are definetly the most easy xc courses i ever seen. when its wet then there is some fun parts but definetly nothing too technical. even the ciclocross euro videos i have here looks harder.

the norba courses are soooooooo that adam craig and travis brown ride some with a fully rigid single speed.


----------



## NAHTNOJ (Jan 12, 2004)

The frame on the scale at Interbike was a small, 22.5 TT. Not exactly ridiculously small. 

I don't know much about Scotts and Extralights and whatever else. But what suspension designs are they using? Implicit (and illogically so) in your arguement is that b/c the four bar horst link has been around forever is that it is somehow outdated. No true. Horst links were the best design in 1995, and they remain so today. The Nitrous uses what is pretty much regarded to best the best air shock ever made, the Fox RP3. Dave Turner simply doesn't do gimmicks. 

As for the price...$2100 is steep, yes. But compare the level of machine work done on this frame to the $1900 5 Spot. I can see where the extra expense comes in. The tubeset is dramatically more expensive as well. I'd bet given the low-volume nature of this frame that they make less on it than anything but the DHR. Davides claim that it could sell for $1300 is purely asinine. By that logic, a Truth could sell for $1100 and a RX for $800. Turner is subject to market forces just like everyone else, they are not immune to competition.

I could go on, but I don't think any of it would really sink in, so I'll leave it here.


----------



## eurorider (Feb 15, 2004)

I live in that country directly north of the U.S. ...anyways, I bought a Ghost because I found that none of the frames sold in North America catered to my needs ...you are allowed to import things you know


----------



## FuelForThought (Jan 12, 2004)

*Short Track vs. XC*



carlos said:


> the norba courses are soooooooo that adam craig and travis brown ride some with a fully rigid single speed.


Carlos,
You are thinking SHORT TRACK. Carl Dekker won on a ROAD BIKE at one of those. And indeed, Travis Brown and Adam Craig have ridden rigidd SS on STXC. Id on't have much respect for STXC as a mountain bike race either.
But Norba XC can be faily technical. Mt Snow is a prime example. The Downieville Classic in CA is gnarly (not a NORBA though but a very well attended race).
Funny thing is that Euro Pros have the reputation of whinning when World Cup courses are too technical in the US (ie Napa WC at Domaine Chandon). Don't get me wrong, I am not Euro bashing (I am french, btw). It is just funny how each side of the pond perceives the other as being a bunch of wuss.

Et tout ca vu de la lune, ca donne quoi?

Max


----------



## carlos (Jan 12, 2004)

i have to agree with you here. but xc courses in general are much better designed in euro or canada than in the us. 

for me short track is like this year tour de france stage a la "paris-roubaix"... useless.


----------



## Slowpoke (Jan 15, 2004)

Boj said:


> Actually I'm from Australia so if bikes I mentioned are available to me, I'd struggle to think they're not available to the US market. I got to go to bed now but we'll see what Dave says about this.


Yes, I saw that you are from Austrailia, that's why I said "overseas" rather than "europe". But anyway, no just because a bike is available to you doesn't mean it's available to the US market. Specialized holds a patent on that design (i.e. the Extralite and Ghost) that is valid in the US and Taiwan (I think) only. It does not apply to other countries including Australia and Cananda.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*hmm...*



Slowpoke said:


> Yes, I saw that you are from Austrailia, that's why I said "overseas" rather than "europe". But anyway, no just because a bike is available to you doesn't mean it's available to the US market. Specialized holds a patent on that design (i.e. the Extralite and Ghost) that is valid in the US and Taiwan (I think)nonly. It does not apply to other countries including Australia and Cananda.


from what i know you can buy whatever you want from everywhere...
it's not allowed that Ghost etc. sell their products in the US themselves but what you as an individual buy is up to you. do some surfing in the internet and 1 week later you can have whatever part you like in your house. that's what i did too with parts that aren't available over here in europe.


----------



## Slowpoke (Jan 15, 2004)

*Yeah.*



eurorider said:


> I live in that country directly north of the U.S. ...anyways, I bought a Ghost because I found that none of the frames sold in North America catered to my needs ...you are allowed to import things you know


Yeah. Specialized's patent doesn't apply to you. It's only for the US and Taiwan (I think). That's why there are several other Canadian companies making Horst-link 4-bars. That's also why they can't sell those bikes in the states.

I don't know if it's legal to privately import one of these into the states. I suspect that it isn't, but I also suspect that it is probably up to Specialized to stop you (or maybe for customs to catch you). Bergwerk tried to setup a dealer network for their bikes last year, and Specialized stopped them.

The Ghost looks like a very nice bike. How much did it cost you to get it to your door?

Here's the thing. We have lots of guys from overseas claiming that bikes like this are a dime a dozen in Europe, that they have had them for at least a decade, that they are much cheaper than the Nitrous, and will take years of abuse from a heavy rider  . So far, they've come up with exactly one bike that is roughly equivalent (the Ghost). All of the other bikes that they have mentioned are apples to oranges type comparisons, so they are not really relevant.

I live in Europe, so I know these guys are talking Shite. Bikes like the Nitrous are not a dime a dozen and they are not dirt cheap. For example, my cost on the Extralite F1 frame (here in Europe) is over 2500 USD. For this, I get a frame with a tiny little proprietary shock (a primary source of the weight savings) that at best leaves me with no upgrade options, and at worse gives me a shock that is years behind in technology. Shock performance is important and may not be the best place to make compromises. I'm not trying to run the F1 down, because I think it's a very nice bike. It's just that I think their assessment of the Nitrous as run of the mill in Europe is simply way off base (ridiculous actually). All of the bikes mentioned have their own strengths and weaknesses.

Additionally, you can't really compare prices across country borders like that, because it doesn't account for differences in local wages, cost of living, taxes, etc. So, to really compare cost, we have to know how much it would cost to have these bikes delivered to our doorstep (not the cost listed on some european website).


----------



## CulBaire (Jan 18, 2004)

I've kinda been lurking on this subject for quiet some time... Nothing really to add, although I do have an opinion. And it something simular to that of pretty much everyone else here.

Admittedly I would take a Nitrous if it were left under the Christmas Tree, but I certianly cant see me buying one, especially not at $2050 USD. And similarly for that price, I get a bike that I can't trust as I am over the 165lbs weight limit, that and by the looks of it it wouldn't last even just racing on some of our XC and Enduro race courses here in Australia- which I believe is the intended purpose of the bike.

Having said that, the Nitrous sure looks a trick bike, but it could be better designed by the sounds of it, and to me slapping a 165lbs weight limit is really limiting the frame's protential to sell. Those of us that are over 165lbs do race, and I'm sure most of us would love a nice light dualie- Simply put there are better options out there- Sorry Mr Turner

-Cul


----------



## Slowpoke (Jan 15, 2004)

nino said:


> from what i know you can buy whatever you want from everywhere...
> it's not allowed that Ghost etc. sell their products in the US themselves but what you as an individual buy is up to you. do some surfing in the internet and 1 week later you can have whatever part you like in your house. that's what i did too with parts that aren't available over here in europe.


That depends on the import laws in the country into which you are importing the bike (I've imported lots of bike parts over the past several years myself). I don't know if it's legal to import the Ghost into the states. But, that's really not the point. Once you figure in the cost of shipping, duty, taxes, customs fees, etc. is it still cheaper? How many times can you ship the bike bike for warranty issues before you eat up the money you saved? Certainly not more than once, so you are assuming some risk when you import the bike yourself. And, when you consider that you are talking about importing a super lightweight bike, that nobody you know has ever seen or ridden, and of which you know nothing about the durability, stiffness, etc., that risk might be quite high.


----------



## markom (Jan 21, 2004)

Slowpoke said:


> And, when you consider that you are talking about importing a super lightweight bike, that nobody you know has ever seen or ridden, and of which you know nothing about the durability, stiffness, etc., that risk might be quite high.


And exactly how is this different from buying Nitrous??? 

(Personally, I think all new products are crap until proven otherwise...  )


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

markom said:


> And exactly how is this different from buying Nitrous???
> 
> (Personally, I think all new products are crap until proven otherwise...  )


good point
all i said is do some surfing and you will find deals on nice parts also from over the pond. that you US-guys sent parts in for warranty 10-times per year is on another sheet...i don't want to start this discussion all over again. is the "production" Nitrous a proven performer? hmm...

you will find several reports on other frames that are readily available over here (just do some surfing...). if that's a deal or not depends on what you want and what you pay. importing fees are usually pretty low and if you can get a low invoice you can actually get away with very low cost. shipping a frameset over the pond may be 50$ or so. just ask via e-mail and you'll see how easy that is.
hey- i bought several FOX forks in the US which in the end (after adding shipping,tax etc.) cost me less than half of the regular price over here. even much less than what a dealer has to pay. all you need is a computer and a creditcard.


----------



## Slowpoke (Jan 15, 2004)

markom said:


> And exactly how is this different from buying Nitrous???
> 
> (Personally, I think all new products are crap until proven otherwise...  )


Because with the Nitrous, you put the bike in/on your car, drive down to the dealer where you bought it, give the bike to them, then make another trip to the dealer to pick it back up. Total cost - less than $5. With an overseas purchase you are looking at $500 round trip minimum (the last bike I had shipped over here was over $300 one way).

What you guys seem to be missing, is that nobody is proposing that you import a Nitrous overseas instead of going down to your local bike shop and buying one of these dime a dozen 4.5 lb. frames that last for years that you guys can get for half the price of a Nitrous. If that is really your situation, then by all means do it. Davide is claiming that he can do that in the states. He can't.


----------



## Slowpoke (Jan 15, 2004)

nino said:


> that you US-guys sent parts in for warranty 10-times per year is on another sheet...


I see. When logic fails, resort to insults. Classy.
.



nino said:


> is the "production" Nitrous a proven performer


No, but the company is. The company has never produced a frame that has had any durability problems what-so-ever.
.



nino said:


> you will find several reports on other frames that are readily available over here (just do some surfing...).


Did you miss the part where I mentioned I live in Europe? I have a pretty good idea about what is available here and what it costs. However, if you don't speak italian, german, or french, researching these purchases on-line is not as easy as you make it out to be.
.



nino said:


> importing fees are usually pretty low


Maybe in your country. Not in mine. My cost is (frame + shipping + customs fees) * 1.24. So, my cost for importing a $2000 frame into this country from the states would be (2000+180+20) * 1.24 = $2728. In other words, it costs $728 just to bring the frame into the country. I don't consider that cost to be "pretty low". I don't know what the import duty, custom fees, and taxes are for the states, do you?
.



nino said:


> and if you can get a low invoice you can actually get away with very low cost.


Yes, if you can get a company to lie on the invoice you can save some money. There are lots ways to make money bringing things into the country illegally, and lots of ways to make money breaking other laws as well. Unethical as hell, but anything to save a buck right?
.



nino said:


> shipping a frameset over the pond may be 50$ or so. just ask via e-mail and you'll see how easy that is.


$50? Are you serious? You must be living in fantasy land. Maybe once in a while you can find a great deal, but that is not a normal price. I've had 5 bikes/frames shipped over here, and none cost less than $140 (and that was pre-911). I had a used bike shipped over here last summer and the cost was over $300 one way from the states (and that was over $200 cheaper than the next cheapest option I could find). I also e-mailed several bike shops about shipping a complete bike and I received quotes from them ranging from $180 (much cheaper than anyone else) to $500 (no thank you Speedgoat). I have also had my company ship a bike over here for me (thinking that would be cheaper), and that was over $250. $50 seems like a stretch to me. Heck, I paid over $50 buck just to have a few tires shipped over from hibike (europe to europe).

However, if you can provide the name of a shipping company that will ship the frame of my choice from the states to Europe (or visa-versa) for $50 (insured and with a tracking number), I will be forever grateful and I will take back all of the mean and hateful things I have said about you.
.



nino said:


> hey- i bought several FOX forks in the US which in the end (after adding shipping,tax etc.) cost me less than half of the regular price over here. even much less than what a dealer has to pay. all you need is a computer and a creditcard.


Yes, but we are not talking about Fox forks. We are talking about inexpensive 4.5 lb 4-bar full suspension frames, of which you guys claim are common place in Europe. Yet, you guys have yet to provide a single example of one that can be imported to the states for less than the cost of the Nitrous.

The one possible exception would be the Ghost. I have no idea about performance or durability, but it certainly looks like a nice bike and would be a significantly less expensive option than the Nitrous for those who live in Europe. However, I'm not sure it would be cheaper for those living in the states (assuming you even can import one without breaking the law). However, at best that's only one bike, not many as you guys are claiming.


----------



## Blue Shorts (Jun 1, 2004)

Hardtailforever said:


> Sounds like it's so purpose built that it was never designed to last. Unless you get paid to ride your bike, you'll never come out on top when you spend 2G on a bike frame and it breaks in less than 3 years. I'm a small guy (150 soaking wet) and things with weight limits still scare me, because they simply aren't as durable as stuff that's designed for all riders.
> 
> If you crash it hard while racing, you still need to cross the line. Hard to do that if you snap or bend a seatstay or chainstay.
> 
> ...


Have you ever been on the bike? Do you know anyone that has?

I find it interesting that when an upstanding manufacturer (Turner) produces a bike...and has the guts to tell people that it has a weight limit...that you automatically label the bike as "weak". You strike me as a person that doesn't let facts get in the way of their opinions.

I guess you would prefer that bike manufacturers build light bikes that should have a weight limit, but don't. Trek Fuel, Santa Cruz Superlight are 2 bikes that are light and have no published weight limit. The superlight has a limit, but go find where it's posted. Those bikes break all over the place. Trek Fuels break a lot, but don't have a posted weight limit.

Then some Clyde gets on one of these bike and complains when it breaks. They blame the company when it's really their own fault for buying a bike not built for their weight.

At 150, the Nitrous would be a killer race bike for you. But go ahead...Find another bike that's as light with no weight limit and feel safer.

Remember. No published weight limit doesn't mean that the bike has no weight limit. It means that the manufacturer would rather keep you in the dark to make extra sales. Open your eyes.

Props to Turner for having the guts to post a limit. Leave it to Weight Weenies to complain about the strength of a frame (ironic, ain't it?) before they've ever been on it....before it's even in production.


----------



## Blue Shorts (Jun 1, 2004)

Boj said:


> What is different is that Scott and the company aren't advertized in MBA and like, so nobody in the US knows they or what is available. Turner have built this bike as a marketing strategy to take advantage of this and not because they are dedicated to cause of weight weenism. It shows with the product IMO. Instead of going out to design a innovative, lightweight, light years ahead machine they took an old design, used thinner tubes and slapped a weight limit on it. Hardly groundshaking stuff around here, but I guess it is if you read MBA.
> 
> No ill feelings towards Turner though. They are going where the $$ are and don't blame them for it. But Nitrous just won't pass around here, that's all.


LOL. I didn't realize that "Weight Weenism", as you put it, is a cause. Wow. It sounds like special olympics. I'll ask my wife to donate to your "cause". Are you the poster child?

You call the design "old". The design is proven. It is old, but it works as well or better than any other suspension out there. You're right that old designs should be replaced. I suggest you start with the wheel. That darned thing hasn't changed shape in hundreds of thousands of years. Let us know when you perfect the new "wheel"...and don't forget to keep it light.

Why don't you wait until the bike is actually in production and being ridden before you start your flames? Having real facts isn't as much fun as making things up like you do, but try it.


----------



## Boj (Jan 13, 2004)

Blue Shorts said:


> Why don't you wait until the bike is actually in production and being ridden before you start your flames? Having real facts isn't as much fun as making things up like you do, but try it.


It is exactly because bike is not being ridden and therefore hasn't proven itself in the real world that I am raising criticism. Believe it or not I have no beef against Turner or you or anything. I'm merely a skeptical potential buyer, so my mind is open to what you have to say. Summary of my points are:

- Weight of the frame is unconfirmed
- General concensus is that it's a one season only frame
- There is 'suggested' weight limit of 165 lbs

And again keep in mind these points seem to keep coming up before bike has even hit the trails. Not good in my opinion.


----------



## johnmyster99 (Mar 2, 2004)

Just a point I feel compelled to make, as a mechanical systems engineer...

Some here have called the FSR/Four-bar suspension outdated, and said that Dave should 'go out and design something new' himself. However, I'd like to point out that it's pretty much what all bikes are (other than single pivots, and mavericks, of course).

The giant NRS, uses, one, two three, four, yup, four suspension links, and the wheel is mounted on the rear one. 

VPP free/v10/v8/5.5/spyder/blur designs, use again, four suspension links, where the wheel is mounted on the rear one.

Racer X - Yup, four links, with the wheel mounted to the rearmost link.

So I guess, that even the 'new' suspension designs, aren't really new at all. They've simply moved pivot locations and changed (some quite radically) link geometry, which is all the FSR/Horst people have been doing for the last ten years anyway to refine the design.

So when it comes down to it, all bicycle suspensions pretty much fall into three apparent categories. You've got Single-pivot, crank/slider (maverick), and four-link. Some four-link frames mount the rear wheel on the lower link (kona), which actually makes them more of single pivot bikes as far as wheel path is concerned.

So when certain people say that that Turner did nothing to 'redesign' the suspension and just 'copied' what was already out there, instead of being innovative, I'd point to argue with that. Minor and major pivot location tweaks make major differences in link behavior. 

Second, Dave Turner shouldn't have to go out and 'redesign' anything innovative, because back in 1993, he was one of the first (four) people building true fourbar 'walking-beam' bicycles anyway. He was the innovator, and has stuck with what works, rather than moving to 'new' technology as a marketing ploy. Instant center tracking? Yeah, I learned that technique in my second year of engineering school. And no, Gary didn't write my textbook. It's a method that ANY engineer will use to analyze rotational rates within a fourbar setup. Gary was just the first to put the name on his bikes.

The only REAL suspension evolution in the past few years (other than the maverick) has been the introduction of the platform shock. This shock, which has the ability to make any suspension that it is mounted to more efficient, has allowed framebuilders to take an evolutionary step backwards, returning to single pivot bicycles (GF Cake) and poor fourbar designs that yet ride 'efficitently' (even if with loss of compliance.)

So, pretty much, I guess I've offended just about everyone here. But seriously, instead of believeing all the marketing hype about 'new' and 'evolutionary' products, realize their relations to 'older' designs...


----------



## Blue Shorts (Jun 1, 2004)

Boj said:


> It is exactly because bike is not being ridden and therefore hasn't proven itself in the real world that I am raising criticism. Believe it or not I have no beef against Turner or you or anything. I'm merely a skeptical potential buyer, so my mind is open to what you have to say. Summary of my points are:
> 
> - Weight of the frame is unconfirmed.


Turner posted the weight on the Turner site. If you require more detailed info (weight / size), call Turner. There should be no problem. Just out of curiousity, what manufacturers list the weights for a particular frame in a particular size? I'd like to know.



Boj said:


> - General concensus is that it's a one season only frame.


Who is "General"? If you're referring to others on this board that have absolutely no experience with the bike, then that's one heck of a concensus. Again, I've never heard it referred to as a "one season frame" except here. Check with Turner....then you'll know.



Boj said:


> - There is 'suggested' weight limit of 165 lbs.


This is the one that I find hilarious. A bike manufacturer actually has the guts to tell riders what the limits are for the bike and they complain. I hope you realize that Turner will most likely sell fewer frames due to the weight limit. I suppose Turner could act like other manufacturers and keep riders in the dark about limits. ALl lightweight bikes (all bikes really) have weight limits. You just don't know what they are....except for the Turner Nitrous.



Boj said:


> And again keep in mind these points seem to keep coming up before bike has even hit the trails. Not good in my opinion.


This IS my point. You're complaining about a bike that neither you nor anyone else complaining on this board has been on. The bashing is more suspect than the bike. All I see on this board (relative to the Nitrous) are a bunch of non-informed people expressing opinions about things that they have absolutely no knowledge....and you listen to them?

If you have questions about the bike, contact the manufacturer. You'll get your answers. I know it's more fun to take swags, but if you really want to know.....just ask Turner.


----------



## Boj (Jan 13, 2004)

Blue Shorts said:


> This IS my point. You're complaining about a bike that neither you nor anyone else complaining on this board has been on. The bashing is more suspect than the bike. All I see on this board (relative to the Nitrous) are a bunch of non-informed people expressing opinions about things that they have absolutely no knowledge....and you listen to them?
> 
> If you have questions about the bike, contact the manufacturer. You'll get your answers. I know it's more fun to take swags, but if you really want to know.....just ask Turner.


I have asked my questions about the bike and Dave hasn't come to answer them here. What does that say?

And btw your main point works exactly in reverse. You are boasting about a bike you nor anyone else other than Turner people have been on. Seeya.


----------



## Boj (Jan 13, 2004)

Blue Shorts said:


> This IS my point. You're complaining about a bike that neither you nor anyone else complaining on this board has been on. The bashing is more suspect than the bike. All I see on this board (relative to the Nitrous) are a bunch of non-informed people expressing opinions about things that they have absolutely no knowledge....and you listen to them?
> 
> If you have questions about the bike, contact the manufacturer. You'll get your answers. I know it's more fun to take swags, but if you really want to know.....just ask Turner.


Dave has spoken in this thread earlier and I have asked my questions about the bike and Dave hasn't come to answer them here since. What does that say?

And btw your main point works exactly in reverse. You are boasting about a bike you nor anyone else other than Turner people have been on. Seeya.


----------



## Boj (Jan 13, 2004)

Blue Shorts said:


> This IS my point. You're complaining about a bike that neither you nor anyone else complaining on this board has been on. The bashing is more suspect than the bike. All I see on this board (relative to the Nitrous) are a bunch of non-informed people expressing opinions about things that they have absolutely no knowledge....and you listen to them?
> 
> If you have questions about the bike, contact the manufacturer. You'll get your answers. I know it's more fun to take swags, but if you really want to know.....just ask Turner.


Dave has spoken in this thread earlier and I have asked my questions about the bike and Dave hasn't come to answer them since. What does that say?

And btw your main point works exactly in reverse. You are boasting about a bike you nor anyone else other than Turner people have been on. Seeya.


----------



## johnmyster99 (Mar 2, 2004)

I don't think Dave would call it a 'one season only' bike. Especially not when they warranty everything that they do for two years, for anything except running it into your garage door.

I'm trying to think of what wouldn't last more than a season. I mean, their custom bushings have prooven to last way longer than bearings, AND be stiffer. Welds? I know they've been more than outgoing to replace any weld issues on these boards...


----------



## blackjack843 (May 3, 2004)

Boj said:


> You are boasting about a bike you nor anyone else other than Turner people have been on. Seeya.


Wrong. Several people test rode the Nitrous at IB http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=52655


----------



## Blue Shorts (Jun 1, 2004)

Boj said:


> Dave has spoken in this thread earlier and I have asked my questions about the bike and Dave hasn't come to answer them here since. What does that say?.


It says that your expectations are too high. I understand that you have questions, but don't expect Turner or any other manufacturer to be at your beck and call in a forum. I don't see any other manufacturer post in your forum at all. What does that say?



Boj said:


> And btw your main point works exactly in reverse. You are boasting about a bike you nor anyone else other than Turner people have been on. Seeya.


Who's boasting? I know very little about the bike and am willing to admit it. I've never been on it. I don't know how it rides......AND I'm willing to wait to see how it does. If I were interested in buying the bike, I'd call Turner and get answers to my questions. I wouldn't complain about the bike being too weak before I know. As it is, I'm too heavy for the bike so it's of no interest to me.

There's nothing wrong with people asking questions about durability and design. My issue was that they weren't questions....they were phrased as if the bike's been in production for a year and they're failing all over the place.

If the answers to your questions are important....pick up the phone and call. It's more fun to take wild-arse guesses, but if you're serious about wanting to know the truth.....call.


----------



## FuelForThought (Jan 12, 2004)

*Broken Nitrous?*



blackjack843 said:


> Wrong. Several people test rode the Nitrous at IB http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=52655


Thanks for the link,
Post #4 is intruiging to say the least.
http://forums.mtbr.com/showpost.php?p=425646&postcount=4
From other posts on the Turner board, it sounds like tcheezy BROKE the Nitous demo at Interbike.
So far, it is only rumors but it does not inspire confidence in the frame.

Furthermore, very little has been said by the people who rode the bike at IB dirt demo.
I posted on one thread asking for reviews and apart from CrashtheDog, all I got was ranting by some Turner loyalists because I had dared to express skepticism at Turner's claimed weight. So much for helpful comments on the Turner board.
see http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=56496

Max


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*"outdated" and light*



johnmyster99 said:


> Just a point I feel compelled to make, as a mechanical systems engineer...
> 
> Some here have called the FSR/Four-bar suspension outdated, and said that Dave should 'go out and design something new' himself. However, I'd like to point out that it's pretty much what all bikes are (other than single pivots, and mavericks, of course).
> 
> So, pretty much, I guess I've offended just about everyone here. But seriously, instead of believeing all the marketing hype about 'new' and 'evolutionary' products, realize their relations to 'older' designs...


correct
what i was trying to say was that by building his proven design "light" he seems to get problems with durability (reason of that weight limit). so instead of trying something different which could results in a stronger frame without adding weight and hurting performance he simply made tubing thinner and got a "weaker" frame.

have a look at Scott for example.by using carbon fibre and a completely different approach they get a racing FS that has light weight and great suspension. i don't say Scott is the best. that's not my point but it's about the approach to get a light frame that is still stiff and strong enough. you can't just make tubing thinner or you have to put a weight limit on it and i'm sure that frame flexes more than it should.

let's look at HT frame design for example. usually light HT frames weigh around 1300-1500g. now we had Scott making exactly that what Turner did to the Nitrous: computer aided design to minimize tube diameter...resulting in lightest frames. i'm sure they could have made tubes even thinner to get a 100g lighter frame and simply put a weight limit on it....would that be called a GREAT frame??? i really doubt. instead they now went a different route by designing a carbon fibre frame that is once again big leaps lighter than anything else on the market yet has stiffness numbers well above most frames. that's what i call great.

once again, that Nitrous may really be a great /awesome bike but its for lighter riders only which makes me doubt in its capabilities in the long term.


----------



## FuelForThought (Jan 12, 2004)

*Manufacturer claimed weights*



Blue Shorts said:


> Turner posted the weight on the Turner site. If you require more detailed info (weight / size), call Turner. There should be no problem. Just out of curiousity, what manufacturers list the weights for a particular frame in a particular size? I'd like to know.


from http://www.titusti.com/racerx.html
Q: How much does the Racer-X weigh?
A: The extra-small frame weighs 4.9 Lbs. The medium frame weighs 5.3 Lbs.

What I tried to express on the Turner board is that manufacturer claimed weights can't be trusted. It is nothing personal against Dave Turner. I feel the same way about what Chris Cocalis or Jeff Streber say (or anyone else in the bike industry). Until there is a frame weight by an independent individual posted here or on the weighweenies site, I do not believe that the Large PRODUCTION Nitrous weighs 4.6lbs.

BTW, I respect your faith in all things Turner. I just beg to differ. 

Max


----------



## Blue Shorts (Jun 1, 2004)

The fact that Scott does not post a weight limit does not mean that the bike doesn't have a limit. It does. You just have no idea what it is......and you actually prefer it that way?


----------



## velo bum (Jul 1, 2004)

*Nitrous Rider*

Since this thread has so many accusations from people that have probably not even seen a Nitrous, thought I'd give some feed back since I have been riding one since March. I have raced C. C. for sometime on many different bikes through the years & I M O this is, by far the best race bike I have ever had, including climbing, & yes I've had custom Easton hard tails! I've seen the bike on several scales & can confirm that Turners claims are true! I have used the bike w/three different rear end set ups & the production version is a noticable improvement from the proto, which held up to over 6 months of hard trail riding that it was not intended for. I'm sure someone will ask, so I weigh 145lbs. & race masters expert now after years as a semi-pro.

As for the marketing tricks, if someone thinks they can build this bike & sell it for $1300, what are you waiting for? Your best dealer price well have to be $780, so even at a bad margin for you plan on being able to bring it to your door for $545. Oh, don't forget you have to buy a shock from fox, pay the machinist for the 20 custom CNC parts on this frame, pay the welder to weld them to the high end US made tubing, have it heat treated & aligned, & don't forget the ball-burnish & finish work. Remember, on a small production run all this costs more! Also, you will need to spend countless hours designing it, you do know how to do this right? Or were you going to buy a Nitrous & try & copy it. Build protos for R & D, for which you will not get your money back. Don't forget your budy on the thread is going to be competing against you w/his 2.25 lb. custom hard tail that he will be selling for $1047.50, that dose'nt even have a rear shock that MSRP's for $369. GOOD LUCK!

So to answer the qustion of the original poster, yes, I'm planning on racing the Nitrous, again & again! As was proven buy someone that is more of a racer than anyone here, including the video experts, the Nitrous is perfect for destroying hard tails on our dusty fire road courses here in the states. And yes, he had a custom built hard tail, that may have even fit like a glove, to use if he wanted.

I'll wait & see what the skeptics have to say when the bike is out! My guess is not much, since they really don't have anything to base what they are saying on know, do you?


----------



## velo bum (Jul 1, 2004)

Boj said:


> Dave has spoken in this thread earlier and I have asked my questions about the bike and Dave hasn't come to answer them since. What does that say?
> 
> It says he is in a van pulling a trailer full of Turner bikes on his way to Moab to let people ride his bikes.


----------



## markom (Jan 21, 2004)

Slowpoke said:


> Because with the Nitrous, you put the bike in/on your car, drive down to the dealer where you bought it, give the bike to them, then make another trip to the dealer to pick it back up. Total cost - less than $5. With an overseas purchase you are looking at $500 round trip minimum (the last bike I had shipped over here was over $300 one way).


Last December I ordered frame + parts from US to here Euroland via UPS - cost 140$ IIRC, I'd expect manufacturer to pay return in warrranty case.
I'd say youre lucky if you have Nitrous or other highend bikes from your LBS. Many people seem to order more expensive bikes from small specialist shops.



Slowpoke said:


> What you guys seem to be missing, is that nobody is proposing that you import a Nitrous overseas instead of going down to your local bike shop and buying one of these dime a dozen 4.5 lb. frames that last for years that you guys can get for half the price of a Nitrous. If that is really your situation, then by all means do it. Davide is claiming that he can do that in the states. He can't.


While Ghost has many reasonably priced light frames I still wouldn't buy it - they are mass produced frames in tw for several brands. There must be at least 10 mail order shops on Germany selling same bikes with different names!

Btw, see http://www.starbike.com/ for Ghost 2005 range and http://weightweenies.starbike.com/listings/components.php?type=fullsuspensionframes&sortby=real for other light frames (Ghost, Red bull, Duratec are cheap, Scott costs bit more and Nicolai Saturn is really expensive, don't know about Simplon ).


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

*maybe not*



MaxXx said:


> Thanks for the link,
> Post #4 is intruiging to say the least.
> http://forums.mtbr.com/showpost.php?p=425646&postcount=4
> From other posts on the Turner board, it sounds like tcheezy BROKE the Nitous demo at Interbike.
> So far, it is only rumors but it does not inspire confidence in the frame.


tcheezy seems to be able to brake anything he puts his hands on,  , and frames do brake, I think Bikezilla had a hair-crack developing at the BB junction on his 5-spot that was covered by warranty.


----------



## markom (Jan 21, 2004)

Blue Shorts said:


> A bike manufacturer actually has the guts to tell riders what the limits are for the bike and they complain. I hope you realize that Turner will most likely sell fewer frames due to the weight limit. I suppose Turner could act like other manufacturers and keep riders in the dark about limits. ALl lightweight bikes (all bikes really) have weight limits. You just don't know what they are....except for the Turner Nitrous.


How a bike frame lasts is not only about rider weight, it's how it's ridden - Nitrous is supposed to be race frame "to be ridden gently"? 
I have a friend who would be excellent tester for this frame. He's racing U23 at Euro level and has broken couple of Cannondales and now also magnesium Merida. None of them have lasted whole racing season - all these frames have had some sort of fatigue failure ie. not because of crashes.
Here's funny part: the guy is only ~70kg/155lbs and uses mostly Crossmax SL wheels on race bike. These wheels are not exactly known as tough but are used on bike # 3 and he has only ever broken one spoke on SLs...

Bigger manufacturers don't have weight limits but many do have all sorts of possible excuses on their warranty conditions. Most replace broken frames because it's no big deal to give away couple of frames after you have sold 10000.
If one would happen to break Nitrous frame how soon replacement would be available, I don't think there will many frames sitting on the shelf?

What I'm trying say here is that Turner knows that some Nitrous frames will break and are trying limit their damage with rider weight limitations.

P.S. I don't have anything against Turner, they make great frames and I believe they are actually one of the few companies that could make this work. We'll see.


----------



## FuelForThought (Jan 12, 2004)

Nice post, Velo bum.
I, for one, find the Turner Nitrous very exciting. It is good to hear from someone with extensive experience on the Nitrous. What other frames do you have extensive experience on? (ie more than a test ride).
I am stil skeptic about the claimed weight but I would love to be proven wrong.

Max



velo bum said:


> Since this thread has so many accusations from people that have probably not even seen a Nitrous, thought I'd give some feed back since I have been riding one since March. I have raced C. C. for sometime on many different bikes through the years & I M O this is, by far the best race bike I have ever had, including climbing, & yes I've had custom Easton hard tails!


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

This thread is a freakin riot. In 6-12 months, I would be willing to bet, everyone here will be talking about how the nitrous is such a great race bike, and how they were able to build one down below 20 pounds, etc.. But until that first weight weenie takes the dive for everyone else, the bike will be badmouthed. 

A couple of comments to the posts in general:

1) I believe that Dave Turner made the offer for anyone to schedule to come by the shop and bring whatever frame they wanted to compare for weight. He even said he would get the scale calabrated to do so. I don't see anyone here offering up weights on a freshly calibrated scale. BTW, past representations by Turner about weight have been spot on.

2) Turner enjoys a reputation of building strong reliable bikes. The Nitrous is a new type of bike for them and they don't want people who would traditionally take a Turner, beat the crap out of it, and expect it to survive to believe this is a 4.6 pound bike they can do this with. The weight limit is not because the frame is weak, but because Turner is a very conservative company.


----------



## Blue Shorts (Jun 1, 2004)

MaxXx said:


> from http://www.titusti.com/racerx.html
> Q: How much does the Racer-X weigh?
> A: The extra-small frame weighs 4.9 Lbs. The medium frame weighs 5.3 Lbs.
> 
> ...


I understand your points. They make sense. It is tough to get an accurate weight out of manufacturers for a few reasons.....most of which you already know so I won't bore you. I would be curious, however, to know what Turner has to say about the weights. I'd call, but I already bother them enough with my own questions. Give them a holler and let us know what you find out.

As far as my faith in all things Turner.....Faith is the wrong word. Faith implies that I blindly believe in something, regardless of what science says.

I do trust Turner, though. The trust isn't based on faith. It's based on multiple conversations. It's based on being treated as a valued customer everytime I call them. It's based on a bike that is out-performing anything I have ever ridden.

Maybe if I owned a Titus I'd feel the same about them. I have heard wonderful things about those bikes...the same for Ventana.

The bottom line is......I trust certian companies because of my own experience, plus the experience of others that I trust. It's not faith. It's great customer service and great products.

Let us know what you find out about the weights!!!


----------



## johnmyster99 (Mar 2, 2004)

MaxXx said:


> Thanks for the link,
> Post #4 is intruiging to say the least.
> http://forums.mtbr.com/showpost.php?p=425646&postcount=4
> From other posts on the Turner board, it sounds like tcheezy BROKE the Nitous demo at Interbike.
> ...


----------



## eurorider (Feb 15, 2004)

Slowpoke said:


> How much did it cost you to get it to your door?


all i can say is that i got what i wanted for less than the stuff i didn't want which was sold here ...check out starbike ...you may be surprised...


----------



## Jaybo (Mar 5, 2008)

*I have never ridden one but it is supossed to be a pro level ride*



Davide said:


> I have a 5-spot and I know that this is not a "trail" bike. My point is that whoever is doing the marketing at Turner is using all the tricks in the businness: rumors, showing an extra-small bike at interbike with a claimed 4.4. pounds weight, making sure MBA prints the 4.4 frame weight (even if the frame is a medium and it cannnot be that light if the extra-smal is 4.4, and of course MBA does not check), and especially charging an absolute inane premium price for a frame that should be less expensive of the overpriced 5-spot: Turner is not alone for sure in using these tricks but It is not a pretty sight.
> 
> All of this for a frame that is equivalent to any other 3-3.5" race bikes on the market: really even if this frame is sub 5lbs, there are plenty others as light, and if you have to count on 200 gram to win a race ...
> 
> But it works like a charm: I am ready to bet anything that Tuner would sell LESS Nitrous if the price tag was at $1350.


I would go with the Spot or one of the newer Turner 4" bikes for weekend and after work riding. Forget name. However, if I was racing, and was really serious about it, I would pick up a Nitrous in a minute. Turner is in the business of making dough. The market sets the price.

Jaybo

PS I still think the 4-bar design is the best--ancient or not.


----------



## Boj (Jan 13, 2004)

My apologies over short and triple posts. I was at work and shouldn't have been posting anyway.

In any case I think now I am a target of less constructive criticism and more 'spiteful angry children' retorts all because I dared say that Nitrous is not the greatest. I will remind you all that I have no axe to grind with Turner or anybody. I am just calling it as I have seen it evolve so in case you don't like what I say there is a way to debate without behaving like you're five and I just insulted your favourite toy.

First off, you have taken out of context my remark about Nitrous 'old' design. I don't care if it is old (or 'time proven' as you put it) but I do care that looking at the overall picture there is no real innovation in the bike.

Lets look at Scott. Genious is 5.0 lbs has a front CF triangle and uses a pull shock. Strike also has a CF front triangle and, scandium swingarm from design of which you can see the put thought in making it light, and it shows, 4.4 lbs with shock, medium. Don't even need to go on about their hardtails, there is nothing close to Scott Aluminium or CF offerings. These are the trademarks of leading edge performance orientated company. They don't engineer their bikes half arsedly, they pull no stops doing what they do best and just taking one look at any of their offerings shows innovation and performance.

Lets look at Nitrous. Take design that everyone has - make tubes thinner - put 'suggested' weight limit on it. You can disguise this however you want but there is no getting around it, there is just no evidence of any innovation on Nitrous. Whether or not the weight limit is just to sway correct market does not make any difference. This alone doesn't make the bike bad but it is a small telling point which says a lot.

Any bike in Nitrous category has to back up claims with performace. So far there is *no confirmed weight for Nitrous*. I won't be going to Turner site to see what claimed weight is. Dave Turner has set a precedent by coming out to defend his bike here, even dared everyone to have a weigh session with him. So I won't take anything less than him telling me what the bike weighs or alternatively showing us a happy snap of that frame on a scale (he's done it for the Turner forum so it's not like he hasn't got a scale or a camera around). Additionally, although it is encouraging that there is a 2 year warranty on the bike. Ultimate proof of reliability will be in trouble free usage over time. The fact that some people have test ridden it does not constitute that.

In conclusion, when replying keep in mind that although I am a very tough customer I haven't got my mind closed. If you wish to debate points here, it's fine but if you have never posted on this board and scoff cause I don't buy into the fanfare, you won't get far with me.

Regards,
Bojan


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

Boj said:


> My apologies over short and triple posts. I was at work and shouldn't have been posting anyway.
> 
> Any bike in Nitrous category has to back up claims with performace. So far there is *no confirmed weight for Nitrous*. I won't be going to Turner site to see what claimed weight is. Dave Turner has set a precedent by coming out to defend his bike here, even dared everyone to have a weigh session with him. So I won't take anything less than him telling me what the bike weighs or alternatively showing us a happy snap of that frame on a scale (he's done it for the Turner forum so it's not like he hasn't got a scale or a camera around). Additionally, although it is encouraging that there is a 2 year warranty on the bike. Ultimate proof of reliability will be in trouble free usage over time. The fact that some people have test ridden it does not constitute that.
> 
> ...


I'm a bit confused. You say that you won't accept anything less that Dave Turner telling you what the bike weighs or snapping a picture of it on a scale. You then say that you are well aware of the post by Turner with a picture of the frame on the scale. So you are completely aware of weight as asserted by Turner. You trust what he says here in this forum, but not on his website (hint he owns the company so its not like some corporation uses his name and then just does what they want). It just doesn't add up. Can you please explain the logic or rational of your statements because they don't make any sense to me.

You say that a few people test rides tell you nothing. What about the poster who has been riding one for 6 months. As I understand it, Turner sent out 20 protype bikes to test riders for extended use and thrashing to make sure the frame was reliable. This is more than just a test ride.

What are all the naysayers going to say when the frames actually weigh what turner says they will?


----------



## miles e (Jan 16, 2004)

Boj said:


> In conclusion, when replying keep in mind that although I am a very tough customer I haven't got my mind closed.


I think it's fair to say that you're skeptical and pessamistic (largely because it is not a Scott and everything they embody), while I am skeptical and optimistic (largely because it is a Turner and everything they embody). I think everyone is well served by a frame of this type doing well, so it is just a bit bewildering to see people betting against it and trying to poo poo it from the word "go". When it was first leaked I too had my doubts about the frame hitting its target weight, but from every indication they have succeeded on that front. Strength remains to be seen at this point, but the fact that Turner posts a 165 lb. weight limit does not give me a moment's pause as to how well the frame _should _ hold up for its intended use within its intended audience.

Apparently some people have problems with manufacturers publishing weight limits, but it's absurd to say that the Nitrous is weaker than a frame from manufacturer X just because X doesn't post a weight limit on their frame. The only logical conclusion you can draw is that a frame without a published weight limit (Flux) from a given manufacturer (Turner) is stronger than a frame (Nitrous) with a published weight limit from the *same * manufacturer. Like Blue Shorts pointed out, every frame/component has its limits, it's just that most manufacturers won't tell you this until afterwards. Some people may not like that a particular bike was not designed to handle their weight, but that seems pretty juvenile to me. If the Nitrous was designed to handle the antics of any yahoo off the street then it would cease to be the Nitrous and would probably not be produced at all.

Of course they took off material to make it lighter; how else do you make something lighter? Yes, carbon fiber is one potential way, but there are plenty of people like myself who shy away from that material for mountain bike applications, especially for something as vulnerable to impacts as the frame.

And on a final note it's pretty silly when everyone here makes it sound like Turner couldn't design a full suspension bike themselves so they just recycled an outdated one. Dave was involved with bringing the FSR design to market in the first place and has stuck with it and refined it for the last decade because it works and works well, while other "revelations" in rear suspension have come and gone (and sometimes come again), largely failing to live up to the hype.


----------



## DGC (Jan 12, 2004)

*I will re-confirm Velo Bum*



velo bum said:


> Boj said:
> 
> 
> > Dave has spoken in this thread earlier and I have asked my questions about the bike and Dave hasn't come to answer them since. What does that say?
> ...


----------



## Ventanarama (Dec 10, 2001)

MaxXx said:


> Thanks for the link,
> Post #4 is intruiging to say the least.
> http://forums.mtbr.com/showpost.php?p=425646&postcount=4
> From other posts on the Turner board, it sounds like tcheezy BROKE the Nitous demo at Interbike.
> ...


All right, lets clear this up before you guys start any ridiculous rumors.... Tshcheezy didn't break the Nitrous, but yes the large demo bike did develop a small crack at the shock mount on the seat-tube. I'm actually the one who found it. Before anyone freaks out and says "see I told you it looked weak" keep in mind that this was a prototype frame with a much thinner seat-tube than what the production bike will have (I think Dave said it's a hardtail seatube, ie: not meant to have a shock-mount welded onto the middle of it). Even final production versions with thicker seat-tube should be under 5lbs for the large though. I'll be happy to post an exact weight when I get a frame in. 
Larry Mettler
http://www.mtnhighcyclery.com


----------



## miles e (Jan 16, 2004)

markom said:


> Nitrous is supposed to be race frame "to be ridden gently"


Are you actually quoting someone who said the frame should be "ridden gently", or are you adding this yourself? You do not win two series titles in one year by riding a frame gently. Yes pro XC racers are smooth (as are likely any elite racers considering this bike), but the last thing on their minds as they give it everything they've got on the course is riding their bike "gently". They rail the downhills faster than you would think possible, and when I saw Kabush at Mt. Snow he was cleaning technical sections that had literally every other rider pushing.


----------



## markom (Jan 21, 2004)

miles e said:


> Are you actually quoting someone who said the frame should be "ridden gently", or are you adding this yourself? You do not win two series titles in one year by riding a frame gently. Yes pro XC racers are smooth (as are likely any elite racers considering this bike), but the last thing on their minds as they give it everything they've got on the course is riding their bike "gently". They rail the downhills faster than you would think possible, and when I saw Kabush at Mt. Snow he was cleaning technical sections that had literally every other rider pushing.


Of course I'm reading this between lines since weight limit is so low that it's meaningless. One or two prototypes out there doesn't prove anything, let's get say 20 production frames out there and then see if the frames last. This bike is made for marketing IMO.

Yes, pro riders and even many junior XC racers have amazing technical skills, I'll get proof of this on every group ride...  
Competition level in XC it's not like in road racing though, where you have at least twenty guys who can win. It seems that there's always one or two racers on xc who seem to be winning everything.

P.S. I'm sceptical about many new things, Scott CF hardtail has disc mounts that don't look too convincing.


----------



## Boj (Jan 13, 2004)

CDMC said:


> I'm a bit confused. You say that you won't accept anything less that Dave Turner telling you what the bike weighs or snapping a picture of it on a scale. You then say that you are well aware of the post by Turner with a picture of the frame on the scale. So you are completely aware of weight as asserted by Turner. You trust what he says here in this forum, but not on his website (hint he owns the company so its not like some corporation uses his name and then just does what they want). It just doesn't add up. Can you please explain the logic or rational of your statements because they don't make any sense to me.


The medium frame in the pic on a scale is a pre-production, not a production model.



CDMC said:


> You say that a few people test rides tell you nothing. What about the poster who has been riding one for 6 months. As I understand it, Turner sent out 20 protype bikes to test riders for extended use and thrashing to make sure the frame was reliable. This is more than just a test ride.


6 months isn't much time to draw conclusions on, and apparently all but two of their pro riders bent the seatstays on the pre-production model. That's why it's been beefed up for the production run.



CDMC said:


> What are all the naysayers going to say when the frames actually weigh what turner says they will?


I'm not a nay-sayer, I'm merely a nay-until-I-know-what-it-is sayer. I don't doubt Dave isn't a man of his word. I'm sure it will weigh what he says it will and I'm sure it will also be a good bike but I like to follow protocols, that's all. In any case considering this I don't even know how it came about to me having an argument with everyone here.


----------



## Boj (Jan 13, 2004)

miles e said:


> I think it's fair to say that you're skeptical and pessamistic (largely because it is not a Scott and everything they embody), while I am skeptical and optimistic (largely because it is a Turner and everything they embody). I think everyone is well served by a frame of this type doing well, so it is just a bit bewildering to see people betting against it and trying to poo poo it from the word "go". When it was first leaked I too had my doubts about the frame hitting its target weight, but from every indication they have succeeded on that front. Strength remains to be seen at this point, but the fact that Turner posts a 165 lb. weight limit does not give me a moment's pause as to how well the frame _should _ hold up for its intended use within its intended audience.


I am skeptical but I'm not pessimistic. While it isn't a Scott, Turner wouldn't have invested all the $$ if he didn't think he can't make it happen. I hope it holds up and I hope it does well. If it does, hopefully Turner won't stop at this and it will mean more light frame options in the future.


----------



## Bikezilla (Dec 19, 2003)

*Also setting the record straight...*



johnmyster99 said:


> ...As far as Bikezillas previous hairline, ask him about it. He's a big guy and freerides on his spot, and turner had him a new front triangle within a few days of zilla sending in the digital photo. Turner did a fast customer turnaround on that one, just like should anyone have an issue with a nitrous...


Thanks Johnm99, just to clarify, yes I'm big (225lbs w/o gear) Yes I ride hard. *NO* I do not freeride. Perhaps Agressive trail might _look_ like FR'ing compared to WW -XC'ing , I don't have the stones or the talent to huck. But thanks for skilz promotion anyway.

And Turner got me a solution MUCH faster than a few days...MUCH faster.

Max: I think you met with some chafing right after you lambasted rroder...(who btw owns a Foes and has no aspirations to buy a Turner) when all he did was politely provide a link to give you additional information. To me, It really came across as poor form to jump at someone, while stating personal prof credentials...all the MTBR forums are positively rife with technical and analytical proffesionals. You certainly have every right to be sceptical, especially in an industry where published numbers aren't particularly close to reality. But a lot of people felt you didn't give this particular case a fair chance especially since you came looking for input. DT is rarely off the mark of what he states, so while speculation is entertaining, it wouldn't hurt to keep an open mind. OTOH I think you showed great restraint in the face of that chafing by sticking to your points and moving on.

An open question to the forum, if in the US where people seem to be willing to pay anything to get what they want, and with information flowing so freely via the 'net, why is it that there (seems to be?) so little interest in the existing light FS offerings available overseas? Plenty of people buy the very best EU roadbikes, so why not MTBs?


----------



## NAHTNOJ (Jan 12, 2004)

Boj said:


> The medium frame in the pic on a scale is a pre-production, not a production model.


The medium frame hanging on the scale at I-Bike however, was a production frame. It had the beefed up stays, and weighed ~4.5 lbs (scale readout a bit tough to decipher, could have been more like 4.4).

So lets do some educated guessing here, shall we? The difference b/t the med and large prototypes was .18 pounds (4.42 vs. 4.6). Assuming that spread remains consistent in the production versions, and knowing that a production small weighs ~4.5, a med should weigh about 4.7 and a large around 4.9


----------



## Bikezilla (Dec 19, 2003)

*Y' lost me on this one...*



NAHTNOJ said:


> The medium frame hanging on the scale at I-Bike however, was a production frame. ...and weighed ~4.5 lbs
> 
> ... knowing that a production small weighs ~4.5, a med should weigh about 4.7 and a large around 4.9


I don't understand. Were you saying the frame at IB was medium or small? I think it was a Small right?


----------



## FuelForThought (Jan 12, 2004)

Allright Bikezilla,
Good to hear your side of the story. No hard feelings here.
It sounds like everything has been said about this bike.
If nothing else, there is a lot of interest (postive and negative) for this frame on the SSW forum. 
I'd certainly love to test ride one.
Is DT planning a demo in NorCal?? Dave, are you still watching this thread?

Max



Bikezilla said:


> Max: I think you met with some chafing right after you lambasted rroder...(who btw owns a Foes and has no aspirations to buy a Turner) when all he did was politely provide a link to give you additional information. To me, It really came across as poor form to jump at someone, while stating personal prof credentials...all the MTBR forums are positively rife with technical and analytical proffesionals. You certainly have every right to be sceptical, especially in an industry where published numbers aren't particularly close to reality. But a lot of people felt you didn't give this particular case a fair chance especially since you came looking for input. DT is rarely off the mark of what he states, so while speculation is entertaining, it wouldn't hurt to keep an open mind. OTOH I think you showed great restraint in the face of that chafing by sticking to your points and moving on.


----------



## Slowpoke (Jan 15, 2004)

eurorider said:


> all i can say is that i got what i wanted for less than the stuff i didn't want which was sold here ...check out starbike ...you may be surprised...


No, I wouldn't be surprised. I've seen the prices on starbike. However, if he tries to sell those bikes to people living in the states, he may end up getting sued.


----------



## Slowpoke (Jan 15, 2004)

Boj said:


> I have asked my questions about the bike and Dave hasn't come to answer them here. What does that say?


Well, I can't speak for DT, but from my perspective you were extremely rude and insulting, so I'm not surprised at all that he didn't respond. I took your post to be blatant bashing of his product in an in-your-face sort of way (and I responded somewhat aggressively to your post for that reason). In your subsequent posts, you have stated that that was not your intention. Ok, if you say that that was not your intention, fair enough, I'll take you at your word.

Here is an attempt at an explanation of why I reacted the way I did:

There are cheaper unlicensed copies of Microsoft software available in Asia. I could import this software into the states if I wanted to. Assuming it was for private use only and not for resale, I could probably get away with it. However, I doubt it's legal and it's certainly not ethical.

In your post, it sounded like you were implying to DT that he is going to have a hard time selling his bike because people can import cheaper unlicensed copies from Europe (of a design that he pays a license fee to use). This seems equivalent to logging on to a software website and telling Bill Gates that he is going to have a hard time selling his new version of Windows XP, because people can import cheap unlicensed copies from Asia.

It sounds like you guys are saying we should import cheaper unlicensed copies of this suspension design into the states from Europe rather than buying one from him. I guess I don't really see the distinction between this and the software analogy. As a professional software developer, I'm not a big fan of software piracy. I'm not sure that DT likes having this rubbed in his face either. But then again, maybe I took this the wrong way.



Boj said:


> First off, you have taken out of context my remark about Nitrous 'old' design. I don't care if it is old (or 'time proven' as you put it) but I do care that looking at the overall picture there is no real innovation in the bike.
> 
> Lets look at Scott. Genius is 5.0 lbs has a front CF triangle and uses a pull shock. Strike also has a CF front triangle and, scandium swingarm from design of which you can see the put thought in making it light, and it shows, 4.4 lbs with shock, medium. Don't even need to go on about their hardtails, there is nothing close to Scott Aluminum or CF offerings. These are the trademarks of leading edge performance orientated company. They don't engineer their bikes half arsedly, they pull no stops doing what they do best and just taking one look at any of their offerings shows innovation and performance.


Regarding your comments on innovation. I don't consider change just for the sake of change to be innovation. There should be some type of improvement to go along with the change.

Take Scott as an example. I would consider carbon fiber to be a definite step backwards, not an innovation. One fall on a rock, and you can throw away your frame (I scratched my stanchion last weekend on an easy fall, so it does happen). If you like carbon fiber then great, it's nice to have options, but I personally consider it to be a step backwards.

Your saying that cutting a pound of weight off of the bike isn't innovation, and you are using the fact that there are other bikes that are already that light as your justification. Well, you can't just look at the weight like that. Are those bikes as stiff? Are they as durable? Do they use greasable bushings? Does the bike come with the quality of customer support that Turner provides? I don't know the answer to those questions, but you have to take all of those things into account.

Do you think the Genius is innovative? I'm not saying it's not, because I don't know much about it. However, it looks just like another Horst-link bike with a different type of shock. Doesn't seem so innovative to me. In fact, I'm surprise it doesn't fall under the Horst patent as well. You could make the argument that the pull shock is there simply to get around the patent (I don't think that specific shock configuration is listed in the patent). Does it serve any real purpose?

In the end, it just nice to have choices, so I really don't see where running a product down because it doesn't fit your definition of innovative is constructive. I also don't really understand why everyone is freaking out over the cost. The O2 was $2000 five years ago, so considering the Nitrous is a pound lighter, and when you account for inflation, it's also significantly cheaper, so it seems like a relative bargain.


----------



## Slowpoke (Jan 15, 2004)

markom said:


> Last December I ordered frame + parts from US to here Euroland via UPS - cost 140$


Yeah, the last frameset I imported over here cost me $140 as well (2 1/2 years ago, just the frame). Did you have to pay VAT on that? I do here, so I have to add another 24% to the cost of shipping (so, it was really $173.60).

Additionally, you have to remember that bike companies get a break on shipping costs. You most likely won't be able to come anywhere close to that price if you have to ship it back yourself. I can't come anywhere close to that price here, at least not as far as I know. I checked yesterday on the DHL website for the cost of shipping a bike from Switzerland (i.e. where nino is) to the states, and the cost was $673 one-way. I don't know if there are cheaper options, but that's just outrageous. If you do know of a company that will ship cheaper, I would appreciate knowing the name of the company.
.
.


markom said:


> I'd expect manufacturer to pay return in warranty case.


Well, of course that depends on the manufacturer and the company from which you bought the bike. I would be shocked (and pleased) if they did pay shipping costs overseas. I don't know what Titus' policy is (and Charles has his policy on his website). I certainly wouldn't count on the manufacturer to pay shipping unless you have a written statement that says otherwise. I do know what the policy is for the next frame I plan on importing:









.
.


markom said:


> I'd say you're lucky if you have Nitrous or other highend bikes from your LBS. Many people seem to order more expensive bikes from small specialist shops.


Well, that really depends on where you live. I'm assuming there is a highend bike shop within reasonable driving distance of most anywhere in the states. However, I haven't been everywhere in the states, so I don't really know. There are several within driving distance of my place (6 authorized Turner dealers within an hours drive). My post was an oversimplification (didn't have time to write a complete response). Ground shipping within the states is pretty reasonable, so it's really not that expensive if you go that way either.

However, there are advantages to buying from a good local dealer. I've had one bike go back to the factory for warranty issues. I took the bike to the shop where I bought it. The shop stripped the bike and shipped it back to the factory. The shop provided me with a loaner bike while mine was being repaired. Then, when they got my bike back, they built it back up for me. My total cost was $0 (not counting gas for the roundtrip to the bike shop).

If I had imported the bike myself, I would have had to pay to have the bike stripped (or bought the tools), pay for shipping both ways, and then pay to have the bike built back up. I would have been without a bike all summer (long story). Plus, any damage that occurred to my bike during shipping would have been my problem. That's the risk you take when you import the bike yourself. Whether or not it's worth it, is a personal decision, but it is a real risk (in other words, I do think there is some real value in ordering through a dealer or an importer).
.
.



markom said:


> While Ghost has many reasonably priced light frames I still wouldn't buy it - they are mass produced frames in tw for several brands. There must be at least 10 mail order shops on Germany selling same bikes with different names!


Thanks. That's good to know. I personally wouldn't be interested anyway, because I don't know anything about the bike. Without being able to read some magazine reviews and some rider reviews, there really isn't any way for me to get any info about the bike, and I'm not going to import a bike that I don't know anything about.

I probably over reacted a bit and responded a bit more aggressively than necessary. From my perspective, nino's, Boj's and Davide's comments looked to be blatant unsolicited bashing and ridicule of an American product and company by some guys from overseas. A product of which they have no direct knowledge what-so-ever. As an American living in Europe, I hear this constant, relentless, unprovoked criticism and ridicule of all things American nearly every day. So, I'm a bit touchy I suppose.

I live in one of the most expensive countries in Europe (if not the world). Bike parts are brutally expensive here. I wish that what nino is saying were true. I would love to be able to save some money by (legally) importing parts from some of the neighboring countries. However, I just haven't found that to be the case, so to me it looks like a thinly vieled excuse to bash american an american product (and it's designer).

For what ever reason, even for parts from european companies, the least expensive option seems to be one of the on-line retailers in the states. There are some exceptions such as Marzocchi, Time, and Mavic, but for most other parts the US shops seem to be cheaper. I'd love to be able to get a deal on some Hope hubs for example, but the UK shops don't seem to be any cheaper that those in the states. Go figure.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Mr. Scary said:


> Nino,
> Once again you go where you have no business being. You cannot simply pump up air suspension to negate chassis flex. You keep mentioning "fancy computers", maybe you could learn what program was used before criticizing it (Pro-E perhaps). Turner also indicates that Kabush has done real world testing on the chassis (obviously) and he feels that his weight (165lbs) is the max for the chassis to perform correctly. It is a clean design, which is more than I can say for a Scott full suspension you have posted, and don't even get me started on German over-engineered pieces of junk (like Nicolai)... The design may be 10 years old, but what is wrong with that? It uses new Pro-pedal shock technology, which is breathing new life into full suspension designs. What is your fascination with bashing American companies? The Turner frame is cheaper than your beloved Scott Scale frame, and there is certainly more R&D involved in testing f/s than ordering up a Tawainese made carbon hardtail. You clearly have shown that if it is not something you are interested in or use, then you believe it's crap.


do me a favour and read my posts again. i didn't say that Nitrous is crap. i even said it might be a great/awesome bike. BUT it's sad that they have that weight limit which shows that this particular design is on the limit when done light. that's all.
i just said that maybe they should have tried a different approach to get a light frame with as good suspension that still is stiff enough for all riders.
and sorry, air suspensions are dialed with just that : AIR ! on regular shocks with wounded springs you would have to change spring rates to dial them in for different weights. air shocks do that with the airpressure. please don't go into suspension as i'm really far ahead of you in this departement. i have dialed in motorcycles and bikes suspension as well to a degree where you don't even have a clue what it's all about. 
you still don't get what producing in the far east is all about, don't you? Scott doesn't have some cheapo manufacturer laminate their frames as most other companies do. they have built their own plant down there with own techniques that so far produce lightest production frames on the planet. once again, i'm not telling those are the best frames but they are for sure some of the lightest. stiffness numbers show they know what they do and they don't have to put such a weight limit.

as i already said by simply making tubing slimmer you sure get a lighter frame but if it's not within certain stiffness standards it's not that innovative. that's all i said.


----------



## NAHTNOJ (Jan 12, 2004)

Bikezilla said:


> I don't understand. Were you saying the frame at IB was medium or small? I think it was a Small right?


Yeah, I started the post thinking that he was referring to the IB frame as a medium, then realized mid-stream that he was referring to the prototype, but never went back and changed the 1st sentence. Does that clear things up?

Anyway...IB....production....small.....~4.5 lbs.


----------



## Boj (Jan 13, 2004)

Slowpoke said:


> Well, I can't speak for DT, but from my perspective you were extremely rude and insulting, so I'm not surprised at all that he didn't respond. I took your post to be blatant bashing of his product in an in-your-face sort of way (and I responded somewhat aggressively to your post for that reason). In your subsequent posts, you have stated that that was not your intention. Ok, if you say that that was not your intention, fair enough, I'll take you at your word...


Although I strongly disagree with your assessment of what I was implying I'll bite my tongue and take the peace offering.


----------



## markom (Jan 21, 2004)

Slowpoke said:


> Yeah, the last frameset I imported over here cost me $140 as well (2 1/2 years ago, just the frame). Did you have to pay VAT on that? I do here, so I have to add another 24% to the cost of shipping (so, it was really $173.60).


I paid every possible duty & tax there is... first 4,7% duty from total price + shipping and then VAT from duty + total price + shipping. There are couple of creative ways to lessen costs but well umm... 



Slowpoke said:


> However, there are advantages to buying from a good local dealer.


Sure but I don't want to choose frame by only what's available in local shop. One of the reasons I chose Titus was that there are known quality and less likely to warranty issues.



Slowpoke said:


> As an American living in Europe, I hear this constant, relentless, unprovoked criticism and ridicule of all things American nearly every day. So, I'm a bit touchy I suppose.


No doubt that you'll hear that talk... but about only common thing throughout Europe: constrant crititicism on everything, especially on "those others", be it neighbours, other countries or cultures.
I don't think other posters had any anti-US opinions, just doubts about new product. Now that I think of it I currently have only US made bikes: Titus FS, Cannondale roadbike and Klein hardtail for my wife! I have French car though so maybe that tells something about me..


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*you obviously can't read*



Mr. Scary said:


> Really? You have tuned MX suspension... Wow, I am so impressed-what you pumped up the Marzocchi air fork on your 1991 KTM 520 and that solved all of the chassis problems that KTM's were notorious for back then (namely slow steering and a tall feeling chassis). I have also tuned MX suspension and I didn't race in some sissy Swiss Cup or whatever the h_ll you have there...
> You never know who you are talking to Nino, I could be Jim Felt, Roy Turner, Mike McAndrews, Horst Leitner (who designed the AMP link-ever heard of it Nino?), the Fox brothers, etc. If you don't know who those guys are then you have no business in MX discussions (or mtb for that matter) so shut your pie hole and listen up...
> I've heard the whole Far East routine as well... It's a big issue in the US right now, especially since the Chinese peg their currency valuation to the US dollar, not the Swiss franc or the Euro, but the US dollar. They create an artificial market (one that cannot be competed against), maybe Scott doesn't have any pride, but some companies still do. Look at the Italians, don't see them outsourcing everything to the Far East.
> Weight is not everything, but the Turner weighs less than your beloved Scott FS. That is the bottom line. I only weigh 125 lbs. The Turner sounds pretty good to me. I think putting weight limits on parts is a great idea. Why should I have to ride a frame that is designed to negate the loads that somebody who weights 200lbs can impart to it? Then warrantying is less of an issue, if you are over the weight limit, it's your tough sh_t that you broke the part (unless you can prove it was a manufacturing defect).
> I am waiting to see Scott's warranty policy, Giant is notorious for poor warranty coverage and I expect more of the same. Scott does not put a weight limit because even if they are forced to replace a frame, their costs are less than Turner's. That is the whole point of manufacturing overseas. It's the Airborne philosophy (give them a new one if it breaks). The Scott is stiff, but that does not mean it will last (but they could prove very durable-I haven't seen their fatigue testing results to dispute otherwise-just as you have not seen Turner's). Just as pumping up air suspension does not negate the effects of a flexy chassis (not saying the Scott is but you posted that air suspension could make up for a chassis' shortcomings). It can't. BTW, how many forks have you been in, the air is the spring, they still use oil, a piston, catridge with damping shims, etc. to control fork movement. The air is only the spring rate. Guess you don't know as much as you think.


no, i didn't race any KTMs and most probably never will.i raced Suzukis for 2 years and the remaining 11 years on Hondas. that's Showa and Kayaba shox as well as some WP and Oehlins (if you know what that is..). no, i didn't just drain the oil , i serviced my forks on my own. not the shocks as those need special tools etc..but to set-up a MX bike professionally you have to have some skills and knowledge.that's what i was talking about.

i was swiss champion in the pro class and raced worldchampionships and european championships as well. you can call that cheesy if you want, i don't care. i'm not Ricky Carmichael but i was still pretty fast.

Horst Leitner is a guy from Austria. nice you name him as he is THE man behind all famous US designs, isn't he
what i said about air-shox in my previous post:
"...and sorry, air suspensions are dialed with just that : AIR ! on regular shocks with wounded springs you would have to change spring rates to dial them in for different weights. air shocks do that with the airpressure"...

you name the Italian companies...it seems you didn't have a look at their lineup then. i was at Eurobike and i saw many,many cheesy taiwan carbon designs on some very famous brands booths...sorry - but there's not many that do their carbon in house!

typical cost per hour in switzerland of a working man is ca.100 swiss francs. that's 83$. now Scotts carbon frames have 24 hours of work in there, not a couple of hours like a Al-frame needs....do the math yourself. where would you produce if it was you trying to make some money? now please tell me what's a typical cost per hour of a working man in the US? what in china or taiwan? do you finally get me?

correct- stiffening the suspension won't cure chassis flaws. nice you name it flaws though
what i said about air-shox in my previous post:
"...and sorry, air suspensions are dialed with just that : AIR ! on regular shocks with wounded springs you would have to change spring rates to dial them in for different weights. air shocks do that with the airpressure"...

as i said : you obviously can't read!

again: at 125 lbs that bike may be great/awesome for you. are you happy now?


----------



## Guest (Oct 29, 2004)

*what a bunch of bs!*



nino said:


> no, i didn't race any KTMs and most probably never will.i raced Suzukis for 2 years and the remaining 11 years on Hondas. that's Showa and Kayaba shox as well as some WP and Oehlins (if you know what that is..). no, i didn't just drain the oil , i serviced my forks on my own. not the shocks as those need special tools etc..but to set-up a MX bike professionally you have to have some skills and knowledge.that's what i was talking about.
> 
> i was swiss champion in the pro class and raced worldchampionships and european championships as well. you can call that cheesy if you want, i don't care. i'm not Ricky Carmichael but i was still pretty fast.
> 
> ...


ahhh nino we speak again. you had stated before that you never qualified for a gp in mx, but now you state you did! yes i do know what ohlins suspension is and i raced mx and i can service a shock, you need a couple of tools, but it's really not that hard. with no engineering background though you may find it difficult. nino do you really believe a scott
scale has no weight limit, so a 250lb guy can do 4 foot drops with it and it will hold up?
doubt it. i really find it humorous how you think you are the authority on all subjects, you don't even understand what you are talking about. it's funny because you rip all american
companys for relying on horst leitners design, but scott is ripping him off also, that is why
the scott cant be sold in the US because specialized owns leitners patent. get your facts straight before you talk on this sight, because you clearly have no clue what you are
talking about. i dont understand the big deal made over this turner bike. it is a light fs bike,
no one came out saying it was the best thing going, but certain euro trash just started going off on it. take a good look at some of these euro fs bikes like a storck, etc...
they are butt ugly and the design is just terrible, so i dont know who made you guys the 
authorities on what is a good bike. i dont think turner claims to have the lightest bike
made, he just claims it is light.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Mr. Scary said:


> Yeah, I have an MBA (I'm not a tud scraper such as yourself) so I understand perfectly the cost advantages of doing business in the Far East. My point is that they do not compete fairly (labor, environmental, etc). After John Kerry wins the election here Tuesday, I think you will see a shift in the US dealings with these "cheap" manufacturers (already the emphasis is off of Mexico as they proved to be harder to deal with and their wages rose). You can't stop outsourcing, but why supply tax loopholes to encourage it (US companies can offset profits earned in other countries for many years -almost a form of tax evasion)? And the quality usually suffers (I am saying usually, not always).
> My, the Swiss must live well, since a top "laborer" in the US (automotive at GM, Ford, etc) earns in the neighborhood of $60/hr with all of his benefits, pension, vacation, etc. factored in. No wonder Horst came here to live and work. He had to get away from all of that high living in Europe.
> I called it flex, not flaws-there is a difference. What I said is spring rate is not the only criteria for a good suspension design. You've never even been in a shock before (since it requires special tools and not a dremel) so why should I even bother talking to you.
> WP=*********** (austrian suspension), my aren't you clever? Ohlins-Swedish manufacturer of suspension, have partnered with Yamaha on various projects over the years. Better keep trying Nino, because I am going to show this board you really have no clue.
> When exactly did you race Suzukis Nino?, because I saw a picture of you on a ca. 1993 Honda CR125 (which have never used Showa), so I guesstimate you were on Suzukis in the early to mid 80's. They used Kayaba then as well. SO which bike used Showa??


if producing in the far east is is good for the economics of our countries is on another sheet.

well- as a "tud scraper"/ sculptor i get 83$ per hour.

i see - flex is welcomed feature in a bike frame. interesting point...

i never said spring rates are main criteria. but it's the starting point for different riders weights.

i have been into shocks man,many times. i have all needed special tools for the Kayaba and Showa forks i used. i didn't work on my rear shocks as they need a whole lot more equippement and gas...that would go too far. i had my suspension specialist in Italy who took care of my shox. i did my own porting (yeah, that's dremelling into cylinders...) and wrenching. besides that you still have to train and prepare for the races.

hey, you know those companies! cool.

i raced suzukis in '85 and '86 . in '87 i swiched brand and the hondas had showa back then. also in 90 and 91 if i rememeber right they had those awfully bad inverted showas. back then i had semi-works internals from Mugen Honda. my championship winning '93 had highly modified Kayaba suspension.

wrong - i have several clues

anything else you want to know?


----------



## Slowpoke (Jan 15, 2004)

markom said:


> I paid every possible duty & tax there is... first 4,7% duty from total price + shipping and then VAT from duty + total price + shipping. There are couple of creative ways to lessen costs but well umm...


I wasn't implying that you did anything illegal, I was just wondering if the $140 figure was before or after VAT was applied.



markom said:


> Sure but I don't want to choose frame by only what's available in local shop. One of the reasons I chose Titus was that there are known quality and less likely to warranty issues.


I wasn't implying that you made a bad choice. I think it was an excellent choice. However, based on Nino's and Boj's post, one might get the idea that they would think that you were a bit silly since you could have ordered a lighter cheaper frame from Europe.

Sometimes I have a hard time getting my point across. I wasn't implying that importing a bike is never worthwhile. There are still plenty of valid reasons to import a bike.

My main issue, and the reason I brought up the cost of importing and the patent issue, is that it seemed like to me that Boj and Nino were implying that the main reason Americans don't import some of these superior European designs, is because of their ignorance (either they are ignorant of their existence entirely, or that they are ignorant of the fact that these bikes are superior, or lighter, or more innovative, or whatever). So, I was just trying to point out that it's not ignorance. There are several valid reasons.

1) The cost of importing the bike. By the time you add in shipping, duty, customs fee's, and tax, the cost advantage becomes minimal.

2) The cost of replacement parts is generally higher, because you have to order them from overseas (pivot bushings, derailler hanger, etc.). This reduces the cost savings in the long term even more.

3) The cost of warranty service is higher, primarily due to the higher cost of shipping the bike back overseas.

4) The patent/licensing issue. The patent laws are there to help protect companies that have invested some time and money in development. It's not fair to those companies if someone can then turn around and make/import cheaper copies and sell them, so I tend to respect those laws.

I'm not saying that there aren't any valid reasons to import a bike. There are plenty. But to say that the reason that Americans don't import bikes from Europe is because they are ignorant, is simply not fair.



markom said:


> No doubt that you'll hear that talk... but about only common thing throughout Europe: constraint criticism on everything, especially on "those others", be it neighbors, other countries or cultures.
> I don't think other posters had any anti-US opinions, just doubts about new product. Now that I think of it I currently have only US made bikes: Titus FS, Cannondale roadbike and Klein hardtail for my wife! I have French car though so maybe that tells something about me..


It's interesting that you bring that up. I think that perhaps I'm suffering from a bit of culture clash. It sounds like that Europeans and Americans just have a different way of interacting with each other. We are generally taught that it isn't nice to criticize or ridicule someone else (the old saying comes to mind "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all"). It's considered classless and most people won't respect anyone that does it (and it can quickly escalate into a physical confrontation). However, it seems to be the norm over here, so perhaps I just need to have a bit thicker skin.

In this case, Nino, Davide, and Boj all had valid points to make. However, since they went about doing it in such a rude, insulting, and generally offensive (to Americans) manner, their points were lost, and the discussion quickly deteriorated into an argument. It helps to know that that's just the way people interact with each other over here and that it's really nothing personal. Maybe I won't get so offended from now on.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

Mr. Scary said:


> Yes there is, when porting your CR125 cyclinders what changes were made to the ATAC valve? Or maybe since you claim to have had Mugen connections you can describe what other cyclinder/power valve was accessible to the factory guys (used on the 250's back then, and not incorporated on the 125 until 1993).
> Chassis flex-all frames are engineered with some flex-I never said if it was good or bad. The whole point of the Six13 (which you called marketing) is the ability to tune the chassis.
> If you rode Suzukis in '85-86 then you are familiar with unwanted chassis flex, did you just put stiffer springs in it and that made them handle like the Hondas then?
> You are correct on 1987-Honda did spec Showa forks, also in '90. But I think in 1991 they returned to Kayaba for the 125 (although I could be wrong I can't remember).
> $83 as a sculptor is not a 40 hr. week job, what does a typical factory worker earn in Switzerland? That is what needs to be compared to the labor rate in Tawain (not to mention shipping, logistics, duty, etc). Scott still has less cost, they can afford to give away some frames to owners that have experienced failure. Turner is protecting himself, that is the point of a weight limit.


the '86 suzukis were the worst mx bikes back then that's why i changed.

if i remember right i had a 8mm spacer between the atac chamber and the cylinder (or was it 14mm? i don't remember. anyway - the bigger volume made for more torque. later it was the hpp (honda power port) where you had to shave the guides of the valves to get better top-end. i used Mugen cylinders for years and i still have a modified '90 Mugen cylinder on my '98 CR125 which is still as fast as any new 125cc. the '90 cylinder didn't fit at first as the transfer ports of the '98 motors cases are wider than those of the cylinder but i made them fit (yes, with the dremel!) and i also widened the main port. i use a 38mm keihin carburetor, usually with a 190 main jet (172 is standard)/48 idle jet and a HRC needle. the airbox is modified and i use also a airboot of the cr250 because the standard one didn't "breathe" enough. the cylinder head has altered compression, i use "oversize" 53.96mm Vertex GP pistons with Suter-racing rings (Eskil Suter is the man behind the Kawasaki MotoGP roadracing program, also the man behind the Foggy Petronas Sueprbike engine which got designed by Osamu Goto...). the exhaust is an italian Messico gp3 and the silencer a italian DLR carbon (same manufacturer who does the silencers of Aprilia GP 2-strokers).

as a worker you take ca. 25-30$. i'm self-employee (is that the correct word for having my own business?).
if you go in a garage with your car in switzerland you pay well over 100$ per hour. rent for 1 room in zurich is about 400$/month. a cup of coffee 3$.

any other info needed?

ahh-i forgot the six13:
i just rode my winterbike on the road a couple of times and it's stiff as a bone! it makes me suffer badly.i use the same wheels i used on my roadbike and the excessive stiffness of those oversize aluminium tubes really hurt. Cannondales aluminium frames are well known for their stiffness so i guess by making them flexier with those carbon inserts they actually tried to get better rideability. that's what other manufacturers do with proper sizing of tubes, butting or different materials...anyway, it costs much money is heavier at the same time but probably better riding??? it didn't seem so ,according to the Tour testers.


----------



## Slowpoke (Jan 15, 2004)

*Specialized Sues Scott for Patent Infringement*

I got a bit of a chuckle out of this. Specialized has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Scott to prevent them from selling their Genius design in the states.

If you have been around here for awhile, you are probably aware the nino is a big fan of Scott bicycles. Given that he has called the Nitrous a "dated" design here, I guess I found it a bit ironic that Scott's "new" and "innovative" design appears to be nothing more than a copy of that very same "dated" design.

http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=4343
http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=4386

I also got a bit of a chuckle out of this Singletrackworld article:

http://www.singletrackworld.com/article.php?sid=1092&page=3

Notice that Scott's technical description of their "new" design is nothing more than a regurgitation of what is covered in the Horst (Specialized) and ICT (Ellsworth) patents. I especially like this line:

_Scott have used this idea to try and make sure that the pivot point is in line with the chain as often as possible. When the two are in line the bike does not bob under pedaling._

ICT anyone? Now that's innovation!


----------



## Slowpoke (Jan 15, 2004)

*You may disagree, but it was still offensive.*



Boj said:


> Although I strongly disagree with your assessment of what I was implying I'll bite my tongue and take the peace offering.


I can tell by your other posts that is wasn't intentional, but your post was offensive (not anywhere nearly as offensive as nino's and Davide's however). I mention this, because you and Davide and nino all had valid points. However, you guys were all so insulting, that everyone responded to your insults rather than the points you were trying to make, and rather than having an informative discussion, we ended up in a verbal brawl. I think we may be suffering from a bit of a culture clash here. I'm starting to get the impression that Europeans (and Australians?) are used to interacting with each other differently than are Americans.

I've read your post several times, and I really can't see how you could possibly think it wouldn't be insulting. Did you see DT's comment where he said _"you guys really got my pulse going"_. My interpretation of that is that he was angered by all of the insulting comments, erroneous information, and assumptions posted in the early threads.

If you think it will make you angry or start another brawl, then don't read this. I'm not trying to run this into the ground. I'm just trying to learn a bit about how you guys interact so I don't get so offended and angry next time. If you want to know how I interpreted your post, Here is my interpretation with my comments in braces (in other words, this is what I read into your comments):

_Hi Dave,

thanks kindly for posting here.

In order to understand why this board feels the way it does you have to keep in mind that unlike rest of the boards here which are heavily (ignorant) American, this place has overwhelmingly large (and much more well informed) European contingent and otherwise large international presence._

_Other boards and probably a lot of American bicycle market is not aware of what Europeans have to offer (again, implying that Americans are ignorant), especially in terms of lightweight trickery. Off the top of my head I can think of three FS frames that have *confirmed* weight (questioning his integrity by implying that he is lying about his claimed weight of 4.5lb) of ~4.4 lbs for size M, including shock (Scott Strike, Ghost RT Scandium and Extralite F1) and these aren't one season use only frames (implying that his frame is). There is a good summary about what lightweight FS frames are available in the FAQ sticky thread on the top if you want to read it (implying that he is ignorant about what is available in Europe)._

_So while on other more American boards Nitrous is the greatest thing since sliced bread (because Americans are ignorant of the fact that better designs are available in Europe), if you include the $2000+ price tag, it just doesn't cut the mustard on this board (because the large well informed European contingent can clearly see that the Nitrous is an inferior product).

Having said that I am really glad that you did actually go out and engineer this thing professionally and it is a very light bike, I'm sure. However, as a hard core weight weenie, I still feel that the purpose of this frame isn't to please people like me but to take advantage of American bike market largely unaware of what's light or not (again, due to their ignorance). Not that I don't think your bike is light, just that you didn't build it with people like me in mind._

In summary, you seem to be implying that he can get away with selling his inferior expensive crap to ignorant Americans, but not to well informed Europeans.

I'm not exaggerating, that really is how I interpreted your post. I've read it several times, and I really can't see how you could possibly think it wouldn't be insulting. I would be interested in hearing from other americans about this to find out if they were also offended by some of this stuff, or if it's just me.

But anyway, I guess that's enough about that. I don't want to run this into the ground. I am just pointing out that this is why this discussion turned into a fight. People were generally responding to the insulting tone of some of the posts, not the content itself.

I left this little comment in my last post as bait, but you didn't take it:

_Do you think the Genius is innovative? I'm not saying it's not, because I don't know much about it. However, it looks just like another Horst-link bike with a different type of shock. Doesn't seem so innovative to me. In fact, I'm surprise it doesn't fall under the Horst patent as well. You could make the argument that the pull shock is there simply to get around the patent (I don't think that specific shock configuration is listed in the patent). Does it serve any real purpose?_

I mention this, because I read an article on Singletrackworld last year that described the "new" suspension design used by the Scott Genius. The technical description was a simple regurgitation of what is covered in the Horst (Specialized) and ICT (Ellsworth) patents. All though they were touting it as an innovative new design, it was nothing new, just a simple copy of a design that has been patented in the states for a decade. At the time, Scott wasn't trying to sell the bike in the states, so I didn't think much more about it.

However, our discussion yesterday got me thinking about it again, so I did a bit of checking. It turns out that Specialized has sued Scott for patent infringement in an attempt to prevent them from selling their bike in the states.

http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=4343
http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=4386


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*so what?*

the horst-link is just 1 part of the whole suspension design.

once again - i don't say Scott have the best design. it's about the way you look at designing a FS nd get the best out of it: great suspension at light weight paired with great stiffness at the same time. that is what i call good framedesign.
"upgrading" a existing design with thinner tubing to a degree you have to put weight limits isn't really that inventive. that's all i said.


----------



## Slowpoke (Jan 15, 2004)

So, you don't find it the least bit ironic that the bike you and Davide and Boj have been raving about (not just here, but in other posts as well) is the same design as the one you called "dated"? Ok.
.
.



nino said:


> the Horst-link is just 1 part of the whole suspension design.


Yes, I know. The Genius also has that Rube Goldbergesque shock and lots of carbon fiber, neither of which are of any interest to me personally, but it is nice to have different options. If that's your choice, I'm certainly not going to call you ignorant or criticize you for buying one. I certainly don't think the Horst-link is the ideal design. I think it's great that we have so many options available these days.
.
.



nino said:


> once again - i don't say Scott have the best design. it's about the way you look at designing a FS nd get the best out of it: great suspension at light weight paired with great stiffness at the same time. that is what i call good frame design.


I don't disagree with any of your main points. However, I am offended by your personal attacks and insults. You even went so far as to ridicule DT himself:

_reading Dave's comments make me laugh_

I don't see the need to get personal like that. He's here providing information, and most of us appreciate it.

If you had simply said that there are other bikes that are as light or nearly as light, that cost less, and that will give similar or better performance, and then listed some of those bikes. I would have no problems. If you had simply stated that it's a new untested design and the weight limit gives you some concerns about durability. I would have had no problems. But you didn't. You guys (you, Boj, and Davide) when on a tirade laced with personal attacks and insults, and I found it offensive (and apparently, so did many others).
.
.



nino said:


> "upgrading" a existing design with thinner tubing to a degree you have to put weight limits isn't really that inventive. that's all i said.


No, that's not all you said. If it were, you would get no complaints from me. Did you forget your opening statement:

_agree with Davide and Boj..._

Here is the first line in your post:

_after reading all posts above i can only agree with what Davide says_

I interpret that to mean that you agree with what Davide says. Well, here is what Davide says:

_If people want to pay > $2000 for a design that is 15 years old, weights in the ballpark of many others out there, and has no advantage in performance ... help yourself!_

_if you want something new the new Scott Genius RS that looks drop dead gorgeous in carbon, 90mm of travel, a sub-5 frame-shock weight (medium), and a has more sophisticated and remote controlled shock (which might be very useful in a racing situation)._

_Turner is using all the tricks in the business: rumors, showing an extra-small bike at interbike with a claimed 4.4. pounds weight, making sure MBA prints the 4.4 frame weight (even if the frame is a medium and it cannot be that light if the extra-small is 4.4, and of course MBA does not check), and especially charging an absolute inane premium price for a frame that should be less expensive of the overpriced 5-spot: Turner is not alone for sure in using these tricks but It is not a pretty sight._

_All of this for a frame that is equivalent to any other 3-3.5" race bikes on the market_

_there are plenty others as light_

_I am ready to bet anything that Tuner would sell LESS Nitrous if the price tag was at $1350._

_like a few other Turner-cult-member AK-Chris is so in love with his idol that it cannot see reality any more. The level of stupidity that goes around the 5-spot is amazing, a great indication of a true fundamentalist cult._

_These people will want you to believe that not only the Horst-linkage is the only system in MTB, but that of all Horst-links on the planet Turners have some mysterious magic quality._

_Now the Nitrous cames about and here we go again, it is almost pathetic: this is a 3" bike and there are a half-dozen bikes at that weight and travel you can use to race.
_

So let me make sure I understand you correctly. You are saying that you agree with what Davide says and that you don't find any of this stuff offensive? If that's the case, then I guess I will just have to assume that this is the European way and put you guys on my ignore list. End of problem.

You also stated that you agreed with Boj. Boj basically told Turner that he can get away with selling his inferior expensive crap to ignorant Americans, but not to well informed Europeans.

I tried to argue with Boj that it was not ignorance that prevented Americans from importing these bikes from Europe. I tried to point out that there were legal issues (with the Horst patent), and that when you factor in the cost of shipping, duties, taxes, etc. the savings is minimized. Additionally, if you factor in the added cost of replacement parts and warranty issues, the cost saving is reduced even more. It's hard to justify importing one of these light weight bikes from Europe, when you can go down to Supergo and pick up a sub 5 lb. Rocky Mountain Element Team Only Scandium frame for $900.

However, you butted in and supported Boj and stated that it only costs about $50 to import a bike to the states (which is total BS bye the way). Plus, you threw out more insults:

_that you US-guys sent parts in for warranty 10-times per year is on another sheet_

Nice. What is it with you guys and all of the insults anyway? But no, that's not even close to "all you said". I resent the implication that we buy American bikes rather than European bike because we are ignorant. If someone in Europe comes out with a bike that we want, we will import it faster then we import European women. All of my bikes have Time pedals and Marzocchi forks. I'm certainly not anti-european (or pro-american). We are not blindly defending the product here. We are responding to your insulting statements.


----------



## Boj (Jan 13, 2004)

Slowpoke said:


> _Hi Dave,
> 
> thanks kindly for posting here.
> 
> ...


Average Turner rider doesn not know about Extralite and other weight weenie stuff. If you choose to take that this means Americans are ignorant, well so be it but the truth is neither does average Australian rider, average German rider, average any rider. Weight weenie companies like Extralite cater to very exclusive market such as one on this board and NO average rider from anywhere knows about them but only select few enthusiasts are aware of what is going on in the weight weenie world.

If you don't have interest in all things light and are not part of this exclusive circle you won't know about frames I was talking about regardless of the country you're from. And while we're on the subject, avergae American riders don't know about european parts, period, simply because they aren't exposed to them often enough. This is a fact and if you choose to infer that means Americans are ignorant, more power to ya.

I DID NOT imply he was lying about the weight. I highlighted that bit bold because other frames I mentioned have confirmed weight and are more or less a matter of fact around here. That is NOT the case for Nitrous. He could have popped a frame on a scale and given evidence of the frame weight instead he dared everyone to have a weigh session with him. I asked for confirmation of the weight in the very same post you are quoting (you edited that bit out) and 100 posts later we STILL don't have a confirmed weight for Nitrous. Dave said that he would happily weigh a Nitrous frame for us, so lets have it.

Furthermore I directed him to summary of light FS frames above as, if Dave was aware of those european frames and was aware of weightweenies.starbike.com, he would have been more knowledgable about why and how this board feels about his bike in the first place, before posting, and he would have appropriately responded in his initial post, which he didn't. Since he didn't address the question of other light frames I assumed he didn't know about them so I directed him to sticky post above. If he didn't know about them now he'll know. If he already did - GREAT!!!! Exactly my thinking when I wrote that.

In conclusion, as I have said it in original post, while Nitrous is greatest thing on *non weight weenie* boards, on a *weight weenie* one like this, it isn't. It's a fact no matter what nationality you are. We have lots of Americans that post on this board and if we ask them I have no doubt they will not be as impressed with Nitorus as rest of MTBR world. Come to think of it many have already said so.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*please don't make it US vs. world...*

it never was and it never should be US vs. europe or whatever. you got me wrong. we share our passion and that's the same here as it is over there.point.

that you guys are DIFFERENT what warranty concerns was discussed many times and i still have a smile when i read about guys getting parts warrantied that we europeans would never even think about complaining to the manufacturer. it's not wrong, it's just plain different but we each grew up different so that's it.

i said DT was wrong because he said something that the Nitrous would behave different for heavier riders...that's why it had the weight limit. i said this is "BS" as usually you can adjust any bike to suit different riders weight via adjusting the shocks. so his satement was telling me the frame has flex which makes it not suited for heavier riders.

once again the Nitrous may be a great bike, i would even be in the accepted weight range.

we didn't discuss about optical aspects. it is of no interest if you like the Scott or not.it's about light bikes and their capabilities.

i have brought over a complete S-works HT from the US in '97 and if i remember right it cost me no more than 120$ back then ( that included even swiss custom and Tax). that was for a complete bike, not a frame only. maybe prizes have gone up in the meantime but it certainly isn't too much if you get a good deal on a frame to have it sent overseas.

sorry - the only ones insulting other people are some guys that have it with ME regardless of the topic that is discussed. i get personal if i get attacked but in my replies i always try to get things straight.


----------



## CulBaire (Jan 18, 2004)

*Opinions.*



nino said:


> sorry - the only ones insulting other people are some guys that have it with ME regardless of the topic that is discussed. i get personal if i get attacked but in my replies i always try to get things straight.


I agree with Nino here, you guys do seem to be attacking him for letting his opinions be heard. They are just that ladies and gentlemen, opinions! Nino's opinions are as valid as mine, yours' and Dave Turner's, he should not be scorned for voicing them.

Back on topic: Having seen a few more pictures of the bike, and read a few "reviews" and even other's opinions; I have become very interested in the bike. Although the design is a "dated" one it certianly looks sweet and should ride sweet. The cost however is abit prohibitive, maybe it will come down some *Hint, Hint, Mr Turner*, and the weight limit although it is a good thing it has one, the bike really should have been built to a more acceptable "limit". Knowing your on a bike with a weight limit of 165lbs, and riding a rocky/rooted technical course can't really inspire much confidence. I also think the ass end would flex a fair bit, especially being such a fragile looking frame...

If Mr. Turner would like to send me a frame, I would gladly test it for him, every XC and Enduro race I can find within 1000km's, until it died or proved me wrong 

-Cul


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

nino said:


> let's look at HT frame design for example. usually light HT frames weigh around 1300-1500g. now we had Scott making exactly that what Turner did to the Nitrous: computer aided design to minimize tube diameter...resulting in lightest frames. i'm sure they could have made tubes even thinner to get a 100g lighter frame and simply put a weight limit on it....would that be called a GREAT frame??? i really doubt. instead they now went a different route by designing a carbon fibre frame that is once again big leaps lighter than anything else on the market yet has stiffness numbers well above most frames. that's what i call great.
> 
> once again, that Nitrous may really be a great /awesome bike but its for lighter riders only which makes me doubt in its capabilities in the long term.


Unless you actually know the tube thickness, strength limits, and force diagram/information on the Nitrious and Scott, you're simply talking out your a$$ here. You simply have no idea which bike is stronger.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*no problem...*



Jm. said:


> Unless you actually know the tube thickness, strength limits, and force diagram/information on the Nitrious and Scott, you're simply talking out your a$$ here. You simply have no idea which bike is stronger.


ok - now show me the Nitrous!

well - seen in the the measurements below is the Genius MC which is the "Enduro"-carbon FS of the Scott Genius line. we were talking about the RC which is the XC-weapon. i'm sure within the next weeks the germans will test that model too...


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

nino said:


> ok - now show me the Nitrous!
> 
> well - seen in the the measurements below is the Genius MC which is the "Enduro"-carbon FS of the Scott Genius line. we were talking about the RC which is the XC-weapon. i'm sure within the next weeks the germans will test that model too...


So in other words, you don't know specific information about the turner, and you are in fact speaking out your a$$.

It looks like some of that is prototype data, and "stiffness to weight" doesn't tell you how strong something is, in fact the stiffer it is, the weaker it could be, this is a classic pitfall in designing mountain bikes. Compliance in certain directions and areas needs to be designed in, or you get cracks and other nasty stuff.

Did this magazine test these bikes to their plastic limits? Structural failure? Cycles that exceed the designed fatigue life, or cycles to reach the fatigue life? Of course these are just a few of the things that can be tested, excessive bottoming, lateral loads, etc. The list could go on and on for a while, but there are simply too many variables here. Even though this magazine tested a few areas of the scott bike, I doubt it is going to tell you anything conclusive. Even stiffness can be misleading, if it takes 20N to deflect 1 degree, but 40lbs to deflect 2 degrees, the bike seems flexier at first than one that takes 30N to deflect 1 degree, but if it takes 35N for an additional degree...well you see where I'm going. So many variables...


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*you asked for it...*

enjoy!
http://efbe.de/defbefrm.htm

"Regardless the reputation of materials you can say: The less a frame weights and the higher its performance category is, the more perfect is the lightweight construction!"

and who is the leader?
-MTB HT
-MTB FS?
-Road?

as i said: 
enjoy!


----------



## Jm. (Jan 12, 2004)

nino said:


> enjoy!
> http://efbe.de/defbefrm.htm
> 
> "Regardless the reputation of materials you can say: The less a frame weights and the higher its performance category is, the more perfect is the lightweight construction!"
> ...


Ja, Ich spreche deutsch nich so gut.

With as many broken jeyklls that I've seen with my OWN EYES, I have to wonder about the test and why those results can not be duplicated. FP can duplicate those results fairly easily.

In any case, the information is not there for the turner nitrious, which was my first point. So everything you've spewed out here was irrelivent because there's nothing to compare against.


----------



## Kaparzo (Dec 21, 2003)

When will Scott be selling in the US??


----------



## NAHTNOJ (Jan 12, 2004)

*JESUS, will you GET OVER this no confirmed weight stuff?*



Boj said:


> I DID NOT imply he was lying about the weight. I highlighted that bit bold because other frames I mentioned have confirmed weight and are more or less a matter of fact around here. That is NOT the case for Nitrous. He could have popped a frame on a scale and given evidence of the frame weight instead he dared everyone to have a weigh session with him. I asked for confirmation of the weight in the very same post you are quoting (you edited that bit out) and 100 posts later we STILL don't have a confirmed weight for Nitrous. Dave said that he would happily weigh a Nitrous frame for us, so lets have it.


Interbike. Small Production Nitrous. ~4.5lbs. Their are pics of the scale in the Turner forum and probably in the Turner Virtual Gallery for IB here on MTBR. What more do you want???


----------



## Slowpoke (Jan 15, 2004)

*Thanks.*

Thanks for answering in a civil manner. At least now I know where you are coming from. I am tired of arguing about this, but since you took the time to respond, I will do the same.



Boj said:


> Average Turner rider doesn't not know about Extralite and other weight weenie stuff.


Perhaps. However, the average American mountain biker has never heard of Turner either (or Titus or Intense or Ventana or most of the other small US builders). The on-line community is aware of these bikes, but that makes up a small fraction of the riders (at least that was the case when I left the states, I haven't been back in about 5 years so things may have changed a bit). A good friend of mine was over here to visit last month. I mentioned that I had bought another bike (so he should bring his shoes, pedals, and helmet next time). He asked what it was and I told him it was a Turner. He is an avid cyclist (road and mountain) and subscribes to at least one monthly cycling magazine, but still he had never heard of it. However, the average Turner rider (American or otherwise) that reads this forum is aware of Extralite and other weight weenie stuff (from reading this forum, weightweenis, light-bikes, coverage of Eurobike, etc.), and that is really what is relevant here.
.
.



Boj said:


> I DID NOT imply he was lying about the weight. I highlighted that bit bold because other frames I mentioned have confirmed weight and are more or less a matter of fact around here. That is NOT the case for Nitrous. He could have popped a frame on a scale and given evidence of the frame weight instead he dared everyone to have a weigh session with him. I asked for confirmation of the weight in the very same post you are quoting (you edited that bit out) and 100 posts later we STILL don't have a confirmed weight for Nitrous. Dave said that he would happily weigh a Nitrous frame for us, so lets have it.


We will just have to agree to disagree on this one. He posted the weight on his website. He stated that the weight on his website is from a calibrated scale. He said the Flux at 5.6 lb for a medium frame is over a pound heavier than the Nitrous (in the post you are referring to). I don't know what more he can do. Even if he posts a picture of the frame on a scale, there is no way for you to know for sure that the scale is accurate. So, I'm not sure what it is that you want him to do exactly.

As far as the rest of your comments. I think you completely misunderstood what DT was responding to. I believe he was primarily responding to Davide's (and to some extent nino's) insults. Davide has an agenda. He continually runs down Turner bikes and the people that ride them with personal attacks and insults. The thing is, is that Davide posts some pretty inflammatory stuff, and then guys like you and nino come to his defense. That's how these arguments start every time. Go back and re-read some of the stuff that Davide posted here. If you still don't find some of his comments to be inflammatory and offensive, then I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on that one as well.
.
.



Boj said:


> In conclusion, as I have said it in original post, while Nitrous is greatest thing on *non weight weenie* boards, on a *weight weenie* one like this, it isn't. It's a fact no matter what nationality you are. We have lots of Americans that post on this board and if we ask them I have no doubt they will not be as impressed with Nitrous as rest of MTBR world. Come to think of it many have already said so.


I really don't know where you are coming from on this one. I have yet to see a single post where anyone has implied the Nitrous is "the greatest thing since sliced bread" (on any of these boards, including the Turner board). I have only seen you guys responding as if that is what everyone is saying.

I'm sure I overreacted. After living overseas for the past 5 years, I'm pretty touchy about this subject, and these posts really touched a nerve. I can't go out to a pub, or a party, or any type of social function without someone coming up to me and mentioning how stupid Americans are. That's just the way it is in Europe these days. For example, I was out at a pub a while ago with some colleagues from work, and they were going on and on and on about how ignorant Americans are, and how uneducated they are, and how they don't speak a second language, and how they don't know history, blah, blah, blah... I finally got angry and stomped out. The next day at work, one of the guys came in to apologize. I mentioned that most people don't like to be called ignorant and uneducated. He got a really puzzled look on his face, and then he said "We called you ignorant and uneducated? I thought we were talking about Americans." I wish this were an isolated incident, but it happens all the time here. So, I took your post to be more of the same.


----------



## Kaparzo (Dec 21, 2003)

I think this forum got off topic. hey, at the worst only 100 people are going to get screwed if its bad, and if its good, those 100 people are going to be smiriking their asses off.


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

*It is a sign*



Slowpoke said:


> We are responding to your insulting statements.


of how fanatic some people are that a critique of a manifacturer marketing strategies is taken as a personal insult. It does not happen often in this forum, but, who knows why, Turner owners seem to be particularly belligerant in this regard (I am basically crucified by some of this people because I dare to say that my 5-spot, familiarly called Spotty, is nothing special).

But (since I am so pissed about the elections and in no mood of being a diplomat) I will repeat the insult: to claim, or agree, that the Nitrous is "the triumphant return of lightweight cross-country racers" (MBA action, 11/2004) is just being part of a marketing play.

PS By the way, just to reply to your mini-rant about innovation or lack thereof, there are an infinite number of variants of what is called a Horst-link. Maybe you did not notice, but the Nitrous has both pivots on amn almost straight line with the rear axle, hardly a Horst-link and much closer to the Ellsworth ITC.


----------



## turnerbikes (Apr 12, 2004)

*More words*

So I have been accused of nothing short of a conspiracy with MBA. Why couldn't it be that we actually do make great riding bikes? Year after year, model after model and magazine to magazine we get good tests. Why do I get slammed for a job well done. They said it like it is, prototype, thin seat stay, race only focused tool of hammering changes will be made to production. Richard Cunningham was shown the solid models, he was telling it like he actually saw it.

I know that other brands can't be trusted with weights. It pisses me off also 'cause it costs me sales when customers are lied to about weight, and many believe the posted weights. But does that mean my weights are wrong just because I have a bike company? I showed the prototype medium on a certified scale months ago, 4.435 lbs. Production will weight a bit more than proto, weight on here, weight off there. simple. You will have all 3 weighed and posted in Feb when we get the actual production frames. Untill then, it is just talk.

I ask you guys not to throw weights around that are quoted by other builders, 'cause you don't trust em yourself. Show me actual certified weights of the frames you are throwing in my face. With all the pages of notes I did not see any weights that were personally guaranteed by one of you. Some of the brands and models you were throwing around are in the Flux range of weight, yet are quoted lighter with authority. I have people calling me with weights on my competitors frames all the time. I know how few frames actually weight under 5.5 pounds.

Please do not throw around prices that are assumed. Print em like they were published by the builder. I read in the FAQ's written by Trevor that the Extralites cost 2400 - 2600 USD. The Dean was 2500. The Rocky used to be light, then it got heavy, could their choice have been more weight on frame or a weight limit on rider? The Rocky was still in the 2k range. I am sure that the Scotts will be in the 2 grand range, I asked a Scott employee what he thought it would sell for if it goes on sale here. I am sooooo sorry the Nitrous is such a rip off, we are really going to have to sharpen the pencils with pricing. Maybe if we were to have the Nitrous made in Asia with most of the frames you are tossing around, and spec funky brand/model specific shocks made just for us down the road in Taichung then we could get our profits up and really deserve the accusations of being marketing meisters. With the big jump in profit we could place multi page ads in every mag and really start marketing Turner bikes. Everyone would know our name!

I never claimed it was the lightest frame in the world. I have never made the lightest frame in any catogory. I try to make the best frames. If they weigh a bit more than a competitors, but hold up Turner quality, that is fine with me. If you guys want to train and fast trail ride on a high perfomance bike, the Flux was my answer to that market. You are either a full blown race engine looking for a chassis, or you are a fast trail rider who races for fun. I do not make any false claims about the line, know yourself and pick your weapon.

I have never designed a production frame that was a 1 season frame. I know how bad I feel and mad I get when I buy something that does not live up to it's billing. I do everything I can to make sure that Turner riders are happy with their purchase. The Nitrous is no exception. I want racers to get off that bike and be amazed, for years. We do not stay in business selling new main triangles, or seat stays. We stay in business because Turner customers are happy with their frames. Not all of course, but certainly enough to keep us going with the smallest of marketing budgets. It must be the bike, 'cause it ain't our ads. As someone pointed out, most American mountainbikers don't even know about Turner.

If any of you want to send a resume to sponsorhouse.com we are looking for a couple well run regional teams to ride the Nitrous next year. Then you can tell everyone what you think, first hand.

Any of you not get your questions answered by this can give me a call. 951 677 1711

David Turner


----------



## Davide (Jan 29, 2004)

*few words*

(1) Richard Cunnigham publishes one of the worst bycicle magazines on the planet. Putting aside the constant right-wig rants against enviromentalist, the postal service (!), and their support for the neo-fascist president, only them can title "The triumphant return ..." when in the very same issue they "review" another bike (the Scott) that serves the same function and has been around for more than a year ... .

(2) No conspiracy: MBA would print that the frame is 2.5 pounds if they were told so. It is hard to understand why the weight of the frame should had been mentioned at all if it was a pre-production item. (There has been worse: FOES last year "forgot" (sigh) to include the shock when reporting the weight of their FXR frame, and MBA published the weight as if it was the complete frame, what a great magazine).

(3) Why focus on weight? Focus on performance of the bike and on the technical side, for example explain why you used the ITS-like link instead of a horst, what makes it an advantage in competition?.

(4) And enough. My main annoyance is not directed at all to ... you (if I were you I would not even read the rants of us mere mortal bikers), but to this strange cult-like following that drools over fantasy "best-bike-on-the-planet" which simply cannot exist.

I am sure that the Nitrous is very fine for its intended purpose. And again I own a 5-spot: it is a great bike and I thank you very much for developing it.


----------



## robotkiller (Jan 20, 2004)

Don't bother replying to these people -- it will get you nowhere. They've decided that the ridiculous Scott and Extralite bikes are the holy grail and anything you say will be used against you.


----------

