David Turner, the name behind Turner Bikes, is a figure synonymous with mountain biking history. While early memories of meeting him might be a bit hazy, for many in the late ’80s NORBA National scene, he was the baby-faced racer to watch. As the years rolled on, Turner’s expertise in mountain bike design and suspension became increasingly apparent, matched by his genuine and approachable demeanor.
What truly set Turner apart was his audacious spirit. In a market dominated by giants like Specialized, Trek, and GT, he dared to carve out a niche for Turner Bikes in the full-suspension arena. It’s a classic David versus Goliath story, and in the bike world, it played out remarkably.
Recently, facing growing challenges with carbon suspension bike production, Turner made a significant pivot. He’s now channeling his passion and expertise into crafting titanium mountain and gravel bike frames. This is the story of Turner Bikes and the man behind the brand.
David Turner in his early racing days
From Ski Bum to Mountain Bike Innovator: The Genesis of Turner Bikes
MBA: When did your journey with bikes begin, and when did racing enter the picture?
David Turner: My mountain bike obsession ignited in 1983 while I was living the ski-bum life in Colorado. Everyone cool was riding these European road bikes – Ciocc, Colnago, Masi – for summer training. But growing up on dirt bikes in Southern California, road bikes didn’t excite me. The local bike shop had a couple of mountain bikes, and they looked like real fun. Back then, you could tell who was on the trails just by the tire tracks; mountain biking was that niche.
After a couple of summers exploring trails and logging roads, I stumbled upon an ad for the 1984 National Championships in Eldora, Colorado. A buddy and I drove over to watch. Walking the snowy, muddy course, I was hooked. I knew I had to race mountain bikes! This early passion laid the foundation for what would eventually become Turner Bikes.
MBA: You raced for Mongoose during their transition to full-suspension bikes, working with Horst Leitner’s designs. How did that experience shape your path with Turner Bikes?
DT: When I was racing for Mongoose, suspension forks were quickly becoming essential. We started discussing rear suspension development to keep up with the suspension fork revolution.
The early ’90s were a whirlwind of innovation in mountain biking. Disc brakes, various fork designs, numerous full-suspension concepts, fat tires for snow, suspension stems, dropper posts – it was all happening at once. Rigid hardtails with steep angles and long stems were still dominant, but change was in the air.
Having been a dirt bike enthusiast and reading Motocross Action, I knew about Horst Leitner and his advanced ATK motorcycles. Horst believed suspension should function independently of drive and braking forces, a theory that was groundbreaking.
At the time, bicycle suspension was struggling to find the balance between resisting pedal bob and being overly soft. Horst’s AMP Research was local, so I contacted him. To my surprise, Horst had already sketched out a mountain bike frame design! He was always thinking about active suspension.
Working with Horst on the Mongoose project, I learned the importance of lightweight parts and fully active suspension. It was an exciting time, and I knew full suspension was the future of mountain biking. Though, I underestimated how long it would take for full suspension to become the norm and that hardtails, like those Turner Bikes would later become known for, would always hold a significant place. I even thought full suspension would eliminate rigid bikes entirely!
From Racing to Building: The Birth of Turner Bikes
MBA: How long did your racing career last before you transitioned to founding Turner Bikes?
DT: I raced for Team Marin, Kona, and finally Mongoose from 1987 to 1991.
The drive to start Turner Bikes was simple: I wanted to build what I believed was best. The bikes available weren’t quite what I wanted to ride. I was always particular about bike details, even from my first bikes. Creating my own bike company seemed like the best solution.
During my racing years, I assisted Horst with his designs, but after a disagreement, I decided to branch out. The day I left, I bought vellum paper, pens, and a T-square, borrowed plywood, and started designing bikes in my apartment. Turner Bikes launched its first bike in 1994, proudly made in the USA. This marked the beginning of Turner Bikes’ journey in crafting high-performance mountain bikes.
MBA: Turner Bikes ventured into carbon frames for a period. How long did that production last?
DT: Turner Bikes produced carbon frames from 2014 to 2019. The XC Czar was the first, followed by the RFX enduro model and the Flux trail bike. These carbon Turner Bikes frames were manufactured in Asia.
MBA: What were the challenges and costs associated with closed-mold carbon frame production for Turner Bikes?
DT: For Turner Bikes, developing a carbon frame design, including molds and prototypes, cost around $150,000. This varies per model and company. Hidden tooling costs were a major issue. For the Flux, using two factories, one kept adding tooling expenses. Even for standard features like post mounts, we were billed extra for alignment tools.
Lead times were also a significant hurdle. Giant can bring a new model to market in six months. Specialized aims for 18 months. But for Turner Bikes, with the factories we used, it took over 24 months from initial meetings to mold completion.
That $150,000 didn’t include production frames. Depending on the factory’s minimum order quantity, another $100,000+ and 3-4 months were needed for production. Planning that far ahead in a changing market was incredibly challenging.
MBA: What led to the decision to shift Turner Bikes exclusively to titanium frames?
DT: When Turner Bikes started with aluminum, adapting to geometry changes was relatively straightforward. Carbon molds are far more complex and expensive. When the market shifted to steeper seat angles, longer reach, lower standovers, and slacker head angles, existing carbon molds became obsolete. Re-tooling for carbon was a massive investment each time.
Turner’s Tech Takes: The Best and Worst Innovations
MBA: Having seen so much bike technology evolve, what do you consider the best breakthroughs?
DT: Disc brakes are phenomenal. Easy to dial in, consistent power, and far superior to rim brakes, especially in wet conditions. Rim brakes using the rim as a wear item was ludicrous.
Tubeless tires are another game-changer. Beyond rolling resistance, tubeless eliminates constant flats. Remember how often mountain bikers used to flat? Tubeless solved that. Even on road rides, tubeless outperforms tubes in puncture resistance.
Index shifting revolutionized cycling for everyone, from beginners to pros. I recall riding Joe Murray’s Fisher bike with pre-production index shifting – it was transformative.
Clutched rear derailleurs are amazing! Dropped chains were a constant issue. Clutched derailleurs, along with index shifting and 1x chainrings, have made mountain biking so much more enjoyable.
Bigger wheels – 29ers – are undeniably better for most riders, unless you’re a child or strictly a dirt jumper. The 26-inch wheel was a compromise from the start. Early mountain bikes were based on juvenile bikes. Diamond Back and Willits Bikes experimented with 700c wheels early on, and Gary Fisher eventually popularized 29ers.
MBA: And the worst tech trends?
DT: Center-lock brake rotors are great for mass production but impractical for home mechanics. Mini tools have T25 Torx keys, not lock-ring tools.
Proprietary tools are a pet peeve. The proliferation of bottom bracket tools, often with slight variations requiring new tools, is unnecessary and costly.
Boost frame spacing, for a mere 6mm gain, disrupted the entire industry. It didn’t even significantly change wheel dish. Cannondale’s Ai system, inspired by Bradbury and Cunningham, was a better approach with asymmetrical integration. Is wider hub spacing just a stepping stone to further industry disruption?
Elastomers for suspension springs were a dead end. Early elastomer forks were terrible compared to today’s oil-damped forks. RockShox used elastomers, and Manitou used “pencil erasers.” The AMP Research fork, while beautifully designed, had kinematic issues and fork dive.
Mert Lawwill’s Leader fork, another linkage design, was innovative but didn’t revolutionize the industry and was aesthetically challenged. Its main advantage was a quality air/oil shock, superior to many forks at the time.
The Marzocchi Bomber was a turning point. Prior Marzocchi forks were unreliable. The Bomber, designed in the US, was the first fork to truly meet mountain bikers’ needs, paving the way for modern suspension.
Bob Barnett’s Mr. Dirt fork was ahead of its time. It outperformed spindly DH forks. Jeremy Purdy’s Kamikaze race win highlighted the Mr. Dirt fork’s superiority. Barnett, a small company, equipped top racers and bridged the gap to motorcycle-level suspension.
MBA: “Then and now” – how do modern bikes compare to older bikes?
DT: Compared to even recent older bikes, modern bikes are vastly superior. The last decade of mountain bike development has been transformative. Refinements in geometry and strength, influenced by “A-Line” riding, have dramatically improved handling.
Bigger wheels are standard and better for most. Components like brakes, dropper posts, and especially tires are incredibly advanced. Modern mountain bikes are in a different league altogether.
Turner Bikes, under David Turner’s guidance, continues to evolve, now focused on the timeless appeal and performance of titanium. This shift represents not just a change in material, but a renewed commitment to craftsmanship and innovation that has defined Turner Bikes from its inception.
