[Acadian]

Does the whole industry lose when companies fail to innovate?

There’s been a series of article about this in Bicycle Retailer – Companies ripping off other companies designs.

This kindda hit me last night when I opened the latest issue of Bicycling to see the new Yakima Hook-UP rack add on page 15. They use the slogan "Bikes on…Bikes off! In 10 seconds or less" and the rack is a blatant copy of the Sportworks Transporter. Also if I'm not mistaking, Sportworks has been using the slogan "Get loaded in 10 seconds or less" for the past 7 years.

Yeah okay, it's different, but c'mon!

Same could be said for bike manufactures who feed off other maker’s design and get away with it by doing slight changes here and there.

What are you thoughts on this? Especially you folks who work in the industry.

 

[konastab01]

acaidian,i agree with you,i dont think companys should copy other smaller bike copanys but i happens and the only way they can combat this is if certain companys come to gether and say well that design is took and so we will make something diffrent.thats my opinion anyway

 

[buildyourown]

Imitation is the sincerest form of flatery

If you come up with a good idea and it can't be patented, somebody is going to rip it off. Even if you do patent it, somebody will probably rip it off.

 

[Inclag]

How many years have you ridden on a Boxxer :devil:

 

[Acadian]

How many years have you ridden on a Boxxer :devil:

okay...and how is this related to this topic?

 

[El_Chimichanga]

It can depend on whether or not you like the company that is doing all the ripping off. Say some bike manufacturer comes up with a bike and charges an arm-and a leg for it and touts it as having more champeenships than anythign out there *cough*intense*cough*. Then another company comes out with a similar bike design, but for a much less pricepoint. (Azonic and thier FSR DH bike). Does a price drop while maintaining quality not count as innovating? I'm not sure. I mean, the design is basically the same but they streamlined the manufacturing process. What do you think?

 

[Slugman]

What industry doesn't rip each other off?

In the medical device industry (spinal surgery) I see the little guys ripping off the big guys as much as they dare... just to get that 1 or 2% market share. Does it hurt the giants... not really. They are nuisance and by the time they come out with a copy cat - the big guys are well into production of a new/better design.

Even the giants in the industry who do not innovate eventually get left behind. Example - J&J’s Cordis Coronary Stent Division. They had a 90%(ish) share of the market in the late ‘90s, then their patents ran out. Everyone who could laser machine titanium tubes came out with a stent. Since they had never offered a break in their pricing (HUGE cash cow), everyone came in around half of their price. Their market share dropped to single digits…

In a free market you had better have either a far superior product, far better pricing, or some good patents and $$ to defend them.


We take the approach that the concept we are working on is an attempt to steal market share from our existing products... because that is what the competition does.


Besides, if there are so many more companies jumping in and making knock offs, then the market must be growing, or be very strong and profitable. No one is going to start up a company or put valuable resources into knocking off products that people are not buying, or that other companies are losing money on. If anything all the knock offs are a sign that the industry is strong and growing…

 

[SuspectDevice]

I'm a firm beleiver in the fact that there are no new ideas left in the bike industry. Even the "innovative" and "original" stuff we have now was already patented in the 1890's by some Swiss goat-herder.

 

[Inclag]

okay...and how is this related to this topic?

Actually, one could argue that Rockshox has failed to innovate from the original Boxxer design. Then again, over the years, bushing overlap has increased as well as travel. The seals have improvedand the lowers have been beafed up and now allow more tire clearance.

For all we know, this Thule rack may be made out of lighter materials and more ergonomic than the sportswork. Hell, the plastics may not be as brittle in cold weather as well as fade less in sunlight.

Now according to what I've heard from some peolpe in economics, technology (aka innovation) has an infinite limit, but in reality it takes time and other times there are lulls in technological breakthroughs. So why not take a proven design and try to improve upon it some more? At the very least, the consumer will not have some competition which can drive down prices.

But when all is said and done, unless the company is some huge low cost factory in Asia that uses reverse engineering it will eventually pay and likely go out of business for not being innovative when another technological push develops.

If companies are hurting other companies by using their designs (yes it certainly sucks for the engineer who probably spent countless months doing development getting ripped, but then that leads us into patent law which is probably a more screwy subject than the bike industry) then that just shows that the innovative company isn't doing something right, and the other is.

Anyway, that Boxxer comment was more or less my attempt of being witty and ironic seeing how people e-bash them sometimes for not being improved or changed over the years. If it makes you feel any better, I have a Boxxer :nuts:

 

[OGRipper]

I'm a firm beleiver in the fact that there are no new ideas left in the bike industry. Even the "innovative" and "original" stuff we have now was already patented in the 1890's by some Swiss goat-herder.

Well, to the extent we're all riding on something with two wheels this is basically true, but there have been lots of innovations since the 1890's, particularly in the mtb arena. Let's see, derailleurs, pneumatic tires (sew-ups, clinchers, now tubeless), clipless pedals, indexed shifting, suspension, disc brakes, gearboxes, and so on. Yeah some of these might have been ripped off from other industries, and some are about refinement more than earth-shattering new ideas, but personally I'm glad to ride the benefits of innovation and refinement over the last 115 years!

There may not be that many new ideas, but there are lots of new products that are the result of someone actually taking an idea and running with it. I've had the idea of a lightweight long travel bike for years but never built one...because I don't own a bike company! It's easy to look at something and say, "Bah, I thought of that 10 years ago," or "Whatever, it looks just like a nishiki" or whatever. It's harder to actually produce something and sustain a business.

As for the main topic, I think fair competition is a good thing for consumers in that it helps keep prices down and increases choice. I don't support infringement on patents, trademarks, copyrights, etc., and I hate it when companies do things like Superho blatantly ripping off SCB, to me that's not fair competition.

So to use Acadian's example, if the design is not protected, to me it's ok for Yakima to make a rack that is similar to a Sportworks. It's a great design and maybe Yak can sell it cheaper, or better quality for the same price. But I think it's lame for Yakima to steal the advertising slogan.

Lastly, I don't think the worst offenders would innovate if they could no longer produce ripped-off designs, they would just do something else.

 

[biker3]

Who cares honestly, If anything it helps the industry. Ill take copied products that are reliable, have good performance and have been tested over time any day over "NEW and Inovative crap". Innovation is overrated, The saying "why replace something that isn't broken" comes to mind. Granted we do need inovation but something like yakima doing the sportworks thing is just another form of taking the best possible design and putting it on their own products. There is no need for yakima to waste time and money and risk their companies success. If anything innovation can be harmful, just look at cannondale, they made the fastest most racy stock ATV's around and look where it landed them, on the VERY bottem of the totem pole bike-wise. In conclusion i respect innovation but only when it is needed not just to come up with something new for the hell of it.

 

[Spunger]

necessity is the mother of inventions......LOL about the only thing I remember from school. If we need something bike related........someone will invent it. Think about it. There's been some change (ISIS BB's, Saint/X-type idea, Hydro brakes, Tubeless, 1.5 etc....) So there's been some movement in the last few years. I just think the bike world in general has hit a flat spot in design and going forward.

I've seen many copies of other products out there. If there's no patent, then you can copy it. Frame wise it's a little different. I know the Azonic Recoil is the same as a M1 (in design) but......one is hand made, one is over-sea's made. That doesn't matter but you're paying for US hands to weld it and the name Intense. Most US or even Canada made parts and frames have a high price tag. More so then companies that outsource their frames to oversea's manufacturing. It's just a prefrence thing as far as that goes.

When I was still working in the computer world, I use to see the same product made by 10 different companies that had their own fancy wording to make it special, but all in all it was the same. Cases, motherboards, fans, CD drives, everything. Sony will make a model with their name on it, and if Dell want's to pay for it, they'll make one with Dell's name on it and so on. Do I think it's right? Sure.........if it's a mass produced product in the 100,000's to millions produced.

Now on a bicycle related product I doubt that millons are made each year. All the rack manufactures have their racks everywhere. Sportworks is just known more for their quality and the fact that they are on most public bus's in your area. I've seen sad attempts at a copy of them but either way they all work. If a company can come out with a similar but cheaper one then it's great to the consumer. The consumer now has a choice on what to buy. For a long time I bet everyone bought sportworks because it was the only real easy to use rack out there that you could just drop your bike in it. I bought a cheap copy of it and it sucks. But it also was like $100 vs what a sportworks go for.

 

[leprechaun]

It really sucks to see Yak to do that slogan crap.Sportworks is such a cool company.
When a little innovative guy gets copied then they just go to work and come out with something better(hopefully). Sportworks is coming out with a new rack that is more stramlined, merged the standard and DH racks together and such.
Hopefully it will be better than the Yak one and priced similarly.
The M1 might still be around if other comanies didn't copy theirs or more importantly made more innovative designs.Now we have DH and long travel trail bikes that pedal efficiently because of that.
Back to the real question,we would be hurtin if there was no innovation.The biggest part of our sport(average XC trail rider dude)would be happy on his hardtail or 4" bike but now he wants a new all mountain 6" bike that will be so fun to ride and gets him all excitd to ride new gnarly trails.

 

[-BB-]

What industry doesn't rip each other off?



In a free market you had better have either a far superior product, far better pricing, or some good patents and $$ to defend them.

The invisible hand...


I would agree. Imitation is inevitable. It works to bring the market in line with consumer needs. Unless you can differentiate yourself on intangible benefits (like prestige) then you are going to fail.

I think that it helps the market b/c companies are forced to innovate and cannot rest on their laurels

 

[TWISTED]

Yakima Hook-UP rack add on page 15. They use the slogan "Bikes on…Bikes off! In 10 seconds or less" and the rack is a blatant copy of the Sportworks Transporter. Also if I'm not mistaking, Sportworks has been using the slogan "Get loaded in 10 seconds or less" for the past 7 years.
What are you thoughts on this? Especially you folks who work in the industry.

What the hell? I can't believe they did that. If Yakima wanted to come out with something innovative they should have used the slogan,
"Bikes on...Bikes off! In 9 seconds or less". Now that's a bike rack I would buy!!!

There is a lot of product on the market that is obviously influenced by a previous design. Often it is done to help fill in a product line, but it is sad when a company solely relies on borrowed technology.
There is a lot of new stuff coming out though.

 

[Jm_]

7 minute abbs.

 

[stiksandstones]

Have you been to a bicycle trade show???
Just look at the clowns running the bicycle industry, it is filled with the most uncool, unskilled, uninnovative people I have ever come across. Seriously, go to dork demo or interbike and have a look at the powers that run things...and most of the schleps are just stoked to be making $30k a year and get free bike parts and ride during lunch "dude".
Early-Mid nineties when innovation was fueling the sport-it was because there was a nice buck to be made, so everyone wanted to out do each other, when they all found out the only money was in mass produced crap and "selling more units", or you could make a bushel of dough by copying someone elses design, innovation died.
Marketing in the bike business is the other joke, have you seen some of the ads by these companies??? I spent some time at the book store today while our car was getting fixed and was checking out various industry mags-sports, photography, fashion, lifestyle, etc then I looked at all the bike mags (which I have not seen in a few months) the ads and stories were the usual pathetic mess, but I picked up FLOW and I couldnt beleive Borders even sold that toilet paper-wow!
The bicycle industry needs a clean sweep and get some fresh new talent in there, IMO the guys building stuff are just "gettin paid to have fun", too stoned to know what is going on, listening to a boss telling them to "make it cheaper" or just plain dont care about making something new.

Finally, the BIGGEST problem with bicycles=THEY ARE NOT LISTENING to their customers OR their racers. Most of these companies have the best bike riders in the world, but are not using them-at all...I remember 10 years ago so many companies would just hook up a fleet of hardcore riders, put them on a stealth development group and MAKE BETTER STUFF....real world situations by real people-that rarely happens now a days...for the most part.

Ooops, Luc was talking about bike racks....delete post

 

[Fulton]

7 minute abbs.

step into my office......

 

[sanjuro]

This is not exactly Downhill, but Campagnolo is the perfect example about not innovating. Back in the Eighties, you had the Super Record group, the pinnacle of componentry at the time. But pretty much right after Tullio Campagnolo died, Campagnolo started to lose their edge.

Slant parallelogram derailleurs, indexed shifting, "brifters", even the advent of mountain biking, all passed Campagnolo by. They had products like the Delta centerpull brake, and their apologists trying to convince you proper shifting was push your lever forward, then slightly back.

Even today, I am not impressed with their heavy use of carbon to maintain competive lightness, and they are the only top crankset manufacturer refusing to use a wider BB spindle, despite the gains in stiffness.

I used to work for a Campy distributor in their heyday and I know all about their "mystique". Their quality might be still tops, but I won't use Campagnolo again.

 

[dropmachine]

ANyone heard of those guys...uh...e13? Innovative little bastards for sure.

 

[Acadian]

Ooops, Luc was talking about bike racks....delete post

nah...I just picked that as an example. Could be anything really.

but I picked up FLOW and I couldnt beleive Borders even sold that toilet paper-wow!

I don't think the latest issue is even thick enough to be used as toilet paper

 

[ChrisRobin]

From what I've seen, it's usually guys that don't specialize in making bike parts that end up falling behind a little. Look at Stratos and Risse, both have been using their same fork platforms since the late 90s! They're due for some major changes if they want to stay in it...yet is it even worth while since both of those companies play in other industries primarily. They both came out with freaky shocks (El Jefe being really close to the Avy shocks) but that's about it...maybe that's enough to keep your head above water? They both came out with aftermarket upgrades but they need to put it all together to stand up against the bigger names.

On the positive note, the El Jefe being considered a ripoff of the Avalanche shock, can be considered to be innovative because: it's less expensive, and you can rebuild it yourself in your basement! Risse had the remote resevoir first from what I remember but back then, no one knew what the hell it was for!...until Avalanche came out.

As for the comment where companies should listen to 'us' as in the customer, YES! I feel like calling up Stratos and saying: Make a decent, not too heavy fork that has all your aftermarket parts put into it (high speed compression catridge and ID cartridge).

 

[ÆX]

patents are a waste of money.

the small guys drive bicycle technology into the future.

 

[zedro]

patents are a waste of money.

the small guys drive bicycle technology into the future.

hell i think some patents hurt the industry. I dont know how linkage designs fall into protected territory when they all operate in the same basic fashion and all do the same basic thing, but with variations in performance. To me the specific selection and refinement of the design is the innovation, not the basic arrangement (since doing a good idea wrong doesnt help anyone).

For instance if no one can approach the FSR design, no one can refine it. So basically the consumer is stuck with a single interpretation of a basic technology with no garantees that its remotly the best variant of the design. There is only so much room for different designs for bikes that we need the overlap and competitive refinement of existing designs to allow for an improvement of quality. Otherwise we may end up getting a bunch of good ideas implemented in a half-assed way with a good marketing brochure.

 

[DRB]

hell i think some patents hurt the industry. I dont know how linkage designs fall into protected territory when they all operate in the same basic fashion and all do the same basic thing, but with variations in performance. To me the specific selection and refinement of the design is the innovation, not the basic arrangement (since doing a good idea wrong doesnt help anyone).

For instance if no one can approach the FSR design, no one can refine it. So basically the consumer is stuck with a single interpretation of a basic technology with no garantees that its remotly the best variant of the design. There is only so much room for different designs for bikes that we need the overlap and competitive refinement of existing designs to allow for an improvement of quality. Otherwise we may end up getting a bunch of good ideas implemented in a half-assed way with a good marketing brochure.

So where is the incentive to put money into development if someone can come along and just take it from you?

 

[James | Go-Ride]

Stik you're right. Innovation in the bicycle industry is dead.

Like that stupid TALAS system fox is putting in their new sub 5 pound 6" fork, and that useless, tuneable rail system Yeti is using on their new DH bike. Oh and platform shocks to make long travel bikes pedal better, that stuff is weak.

I'm aware that most of these ideas originated somewhere else, but they're new to the industry and they're making things better. Maybe the big companies aren't stressed about doing new and cool things anymore, but that kind of attitude isn't limited to the bicycle industry. I don't think Honda or Yamaha have a full moto bike that has fuel injection so the carb will die. I haven't seen anything too exciting from Ford or Chevy recently, in fact they are buying Allison trannys for their trucks so they wouldn't have to sink the money into making something like that work.

Innovation is something little companies do and big companies eventually profit the most from in terms of pure dollar amounts. But, in the long run, I'd say most consumers benefit. It sucks to see Yakima ripping stuff off from sportworks, but like Krispy said, they're already making changes to keep ahead of the Washington giant.

 

[zedro]

So where is the incentive to put money into development if someone can come along and just take it from you?

well it can be disputed if there is in fact anymore money required to develop a particular design (ie. the cost of design developpement between an FSR and walking beam would not necessarily be any different, especially since they work on the same principals and mechanisms). Also you would be one step ahead of the competition anyways.

My point was that i dont believe some things should be patentable. Simply re-arranging existing technology does not necessarily warrant its protection. Also improper patents may in fact reduce the incentive to further the development of an idea; ie. there may be no real development costs to patent the idea, but may take alot of money to really maximise its potential. However no direct competition could impede that.

 

[dropmachine]

I would argue that Platform shocks have been a terrible idea, and have hurt innovation, simply because they can be a bandaid fix for a terrible design.

I am so stealing this topic for my site.

 

[binary visions]

My point was that i dont believe some things should be patentable. Simply re-arranging existing technology does not necessarily warrant its protection.

Doesn't Tony Ellsworth hold a patent on his particular design of single pivot?

 

[MikeD]

I thought if you didn't innovate, you died. Specialized told me so.

So do they have some kind of deathmatch thunderdome for the un-innovative? Does DW get to dress up like Tina Turner? Or does Dave Turner get that job?

MD

 

[zedro]

Doesn't Tony Ellsworth hold a patent on his particular design of single pivot?

actually its the structural one-piece yoke design that is the subject of the patent. Basically having a single piece that has the main pivot and shock pivot somehow constitutes innovation

 

[James | Go-Ride]

I would argue that Platform shocks have been a terrible idea, and have hurt innovation, simply because they can be a bandaid fix for a terrible design.

I am so stealing this topic for my site.

The application of the shocks have been bad news, the platform tech itself is cool. How do you feel about the Foes and other bikes that are designed specifically to use platform-style shocks and take advantage of their natural progression rate?

Not that I'm defending the 9" M1. Horrible idea, IMO.

 

[klunky]

I haven't seen anything too exciting from Ford.

that excited me!!

 

[Zutroy]

The application of the shocks have been bad news, the platform tech itself is cool. How do you feel about the Foes and other bikes that are designed specifically to use platform-style shocks and take advantage of their natural progression rate?

Not that I'm defending the 9" M1. Horrible idea, IMO.

I agree i've heard that mentioned many times that stable platform is a band-aid, and for some people it might. The smart people are going to use it to there advantage. You can't break out the shock from the rest of the rear suspesion, it's all one system.

I think Stik is right. The bike industry is not what is once one. Back in the day there use to be tons and tons of little guys trying out new things, some was good, some was bad...but in the end it made everyone push forward.....and i remember the days of getting to try out new proto stuff, let the racers destroy it before you send it out....it was fun to break things for free i tell ya.

 

[ChainWhip]

actually its the structural one-piece yoke design that is the subject of the patent. Basically having a single piece that has the main pivot and shock pivot somehow constitutes innovation

So... how does ICT (Ellsworth) get enforced along w/ the Horst-Link (Spec.)? Does a company like Turner pay two licensing fees for basically one link?

 

[buildyourown]

FSR patent covers the location of the chainstay pivot.
ICT has to do with the shape of the rocker.
Yes, Turner pays 2 royalties on the Spot, flux, nitrous, and pack (I think)

 

[binary visions]

So... how does ICT (Ellsworth) get enforced along w/ the Horst-Link (Spec.)? Does a company like Turner pay two licensing fees for basically one link?

The two designs are mutually exclusive... How can you have a single pivot design that falls under the Ellsworth patent also fall under the Horst patent?

Oh.. I see now.. No, we're not talking about his 4-bar designs like the Dare. This refers to the "Atlas" single pivot design.

 

[James | Go-Ride]

Okay, about that Ford.

Umm . . . Shut up.

 

[ChainWhip]

The two designs are mutually exclusive... How can you have a single pivot design that falls under the Ellsworth patent also fall under the Horst patent?

Oh.. I see now.. No, we're not talking about his 4-bar designs like the Dare. This refers to the "Atlas" single pivot design.

Oops... sorry... that was my stream-of-consiousness posting there - I went from Ellsworth Atlas to Ellsworth ICT and didn't bother explaining that to anybody.

 

[Tarpon]

Okay, about that Ford.

Umm . . . Shut up.

Don't forget GM, they own Allison.