Haha, I was the one that prompted that question on the blog. Thanks for the clarification though!Keith said the machining on that one is just a rush-job to get it ready for the show (hence all the machining grooves), the production versions will be smooth. Looking very cool though.
The linkage layout is similar, however read what the claims of DW's patent are - they pertain more to the specific anti-squat curve than pivot or shock location. I don't know enough of the details of the bike to know whether it'd fall under that patent, but I can't rule it out either.Is that susp system same as US7128329 patent, (that is Weagle's pat.) figure 7 in there?? They can market this in the US?
Ok I just read through the patent. Every embodiment described there - as far as IC movement goes - seems to have a particular characteristic of the IC movement, and that is that by the end of the travel, the IC is on the lower link (or has been on the lower link). This is specified in writing in every embodiment, so I'd say it's a fairly important characteristic. Without going into too much detail, I believe this IC movement generally creates a specific characteristic that DW may see as beneficial. However, at no point in the travel of the Banshee does the IC ever reach the lower link. I also don't know what the anti-squat curve of the banshee is, and I'd say this is a contentious point since it can never be agreed upon exactly where the CoM is when pedalling, since riders vary in size and your body moves up and down whilst pedalling anyway.The linkage layout is similar, however read what the claims of DW's patent are - they pertain more to the specific anti-squat curve than pivot or shock location. I don't know enough of the details of the bike to know whether it'd fall under that patent, but I can't rule it out either.
You pretty much hit the nail on the head. also... the squat characteristics are quite different, so not infringing in that way either.Ok I just read through the patent. Every embodiment described there - as far as IC movement goes - seems to have a particular characteristic of the IC movement, and that is that by the end of the travel, the IC is on the lower link (or has been on the lower link). This is specified in writing in every embodiment, so I'd say it's a fairly important characteristic. Without going into too much detail, I believe this IC movement generally creates a specific characteristic that DW may see as beneficial. However, at no point in the travel of the Banshee does the IC ever reach the lower link. I also don't know what the anti-squat curve of the banshee is, and I'd say this is a contentious point since it can never be agreed upon exactly where the CoM is when pedalling, since riders vary in size and your body moves up and down whilst pedalling anyway.
From this, I am of the opinion that the Banshee doesn't infringe upon that patent (whereas the Giant Maestro system may, as DW has commented upon on the past). I believe there is at least one other dw-link patent though, and I haven't read it so I don't know if it has other things that the Banshee might fall under.
End of the day - this is a much more complex patent than say that Trek/Karpiel issue and there seem to be a number of different things that could cause any bike to fall under the patent. I don't know just how much is required. The claims only really specify the IC movement thing though, and the Banshee is definitely outside that.
is it me or does the head tube angle look a wee bit steep for 65 degrees?
The actual SA looks slack, but I think the effective SA is pretty good.and the slack seat tube angle