Quantcast

cbrider401

Chimp
Dec 22, 2010
9
0
Check this out - it looks like some boys from down under are the real "inventors" of the ABP/ Split Pivot design:

"If the seatstay link was concentric to the axle (ie the pivot was at the axle) then you could run the brake caliper on that and it'd be like one big floating brake... not particularly likely to have "optimal" braking characteristics but it'd be pretty close to a lot of FSR bikes really."

..."Then more recently, I've also been wondering if it was possible to design a rear chainstay/seatstay pivot that centred around the axle.

Now that you've explained that it would effectively be a floating brake, I'm interested to try it (not that I have the engineering talents or resources)... However, why did you say that the braking characteristics wouldn't be optimal?

I'm only wondering because I'm suggesting that the mount is on the seat stay and therefore technically identical to an FSR, but without the Horst Link..."

"For all intents and purposes, they would be nearly identical to an FSR bike. That's not optimal, in my eyes

Basically if you did that, it would be like using a singlepivot + floating brake (since one of their pivots is always axle-centric too), with the floating brake also used to drive the shock in some way. Draw from that what you will."

The whole conversation can be found at http://www.rotorburn.com/forums/showthread.php?35572-quot-Brake-jack-quot-an-explanation.

The thread was from way back and likely pre-dates Trek & Weagle. I'm no patent attorney, but this looks like prior art to me...

BTW, how can both patents co-exist?? They each seem to violate the others first claim. Anyone know???

If the USPTO were to determine that the above is prior art, then it sucks to be either Trek or Weagle. Good for everyone else, though, since any builder could use the concentric pivot (as has been the case for decades up until these two bogus patents)
 

Sandwich

Pig my fish!
Staff member
May 23, 2002
16,845
1,477
01776
check this out - it looks like some boys from down under are the real "inventors" of huffing gas/paint fumes:

"if the gas was concentric to your face(ie your face was at the gas tank) then you could run the gas cap on that and it'd be like one big floating brain tumor... Not particularly likely to have "optimal" retard characteristics but it'd be pretty close to a lot of dope fiends really."

the whole conversation can be found at [url="who gives a ****"[/url]

the thread was from way back and likely pre-dates beavis & butthead. I'm no patent attorney, but this looks like prior art to me...

Btw, how can bradflyn and cbrider co-exist?? They each seem to violate each other as often as possible. Anyone know???

If the uspto were to determine that the above is prior art, then it wouldn't matter because these were patented in the us and idea doesn't represent implementation. Good for everyone else, though, since any moron could huff gas (as has been the case for cb rider and bradflyn for decades up until these two bogus threads)

there i fixed it
 

eatmyshorts

Monkey
Jun 18, 2010
110
0
South OZ
If the split piv patent was awarded a few years back I can see the worth, but given that the FSR patent will no longer stand IMO is pointless..

I am sure everything has been done before - just not patented before...
 

Steve M

Turbo Monkey
Mar 3, 2007
1,994
23
Whistler
hahah, those posts were mine... so I'm apparently being given credit for inventing split pivot 5 years ago. Awesome, where's my royalties bitches?
 

John P.

Turbo Monkey
Sep 24, 2001
1,170
0
Golden, CO
so, "Industry Veteran", who is Steve Matthews?
Steve Matthews=Socket. Hilarious and extremely bright dude from Australia who has the sickest line you've ever seen down Schleyer, is scared sh!tless of the wooden Creek Gap jump on lower Dirt Merchant, and harbors a deep-seated hatred for all flat-billed caps.

And for those of you a little slow, the Brad Flynn/Steve Matthews thing is obviously a joke.
 

jonKranked

Press Button, Receive Stupid
Nov 10, 2005
62,510
8,733
media blackout
Steve Matthews=Socket. Hilarious and extremely bright dude from Australia who has the sickest line you've ever seen down Schleyer, is scared sh!tless of the wooden Creek Gap jump on lower Dirt Merchant, and harbors a deep-seated hatred for all flat-billed caps.

And for those of you a little slow, the Brad Flynn/Steve Matthews thing is obviously a joke.
wow, that was a pretty epic trolling. :clapping:
 

John P.

Turbo Monkey
Sep 24, 2001
1,170
0
Golden, CO
wow, that was a pretty epic trolling. :clapping:
Man, your level of internet-speak is way over my head. I have no idea what that means.

**Edit. Just looked up 'trolling' on Wikipedia ["In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."], and I see your point. As an 'industry veteran', you'd think I would know better.
 

jonKranked

Press Button, Receive Stupid
Nov 10, 2005
62,510
8,733
media blackout
Man, your level of internet-speak is way over my head. I have no idea what that means.

**Edit. Just looked up 'trolling' on Wikipedia ["In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."], and I see your point. As an 'industry veteran', you'd think I would know better.
haha. doesn't fall into any of those categories. can also be a general hoax. or pretending to be someone else and trys to start a flamewar. can also cover topics that are known to cause a lot of discussion. like if someone started a thread about sam hill going back to IH, knowing full well that it was a load of BS
 

Steve M

Turbo Monkey
Mar 3, 2007
1,994
23
Whistler
Steve Matthews=Socket. Hilarious and extremely bright dude from Australia who has the sickest line you've ever seen down Schleyer, is scared sh!tless of the wooden Creek Gap jump on lower Dirt Merchant, and harbors a deep-seated hatred for all flat-billed caps.

And for those of you a little slow, the Brad Flynn/Steve Matthews thing is obviously a joke.
ahahaha. I can see which of the tags in this thread was your doing :)

so, "Industry Veteran", who is Steve Matthews?
That would be me... but I'm not Brad Flynn, or the anonymous character that started this thread. That is actually funny **** though, that someone somewhere cared enough to dig up forum posts from the other side of the world from five years ago in order to try to settle a patent dispute on the internet.
 

IH8Rice

I'm Mr. Negative! I Fail!
Aug 2, 2008
24,548
492
Im over here now
That is actually funny **** though, that someone somewhere cared enough to dig up forum posts from the other side of the world from five years ago in order to try to settle a patent dispute on the internet.
clearly you are entitled to something right?
 

cbrider401

Chimp
Dec 22, 2010
9
0
So you are really S., author of the rotorburn article? If so, nice work....

FYI all: The exchange between S. and the other guy in the rotorburn thread describes ABP / Split Pivot, making the whole concept public knowledge. Any builder or designer could have then read that and decided to build one without fear of reprisal unless S. had filed a patent within a year of that public disclosure If S. had done so, then he could have protected that intellectual property....Bottom line is that I believe ABP / Split Pivot was described publicly in 2005, so both Trek and DW pissed away a bunch of money to patent something which was already in the public domain.

In the early 90s, many of us were looking for alternatives to the Horst link, and I know that a few considered using concentric pivots at the rear axle. No one except Crestone Peaks followed through with it, though, as back then introducing a special QR skewer
that had to be unthreaded from the nut and pulled out of the hub in order to remove the wheel would NOT have been accepted by the consumers of the day....
 

Kevin

Turbo Monkey
Bradflyn said:
So you are really S., author of the rotorburn article? If so, nice work....

FYI all: The exchange between S. and the other guy in the rotorburn thread describes ABP / Split Pivot, making the whole concept public knowledge. Any builder or designer could have then read that and decided to build one without fear of reprisal unless S. had filed a patent within a year of that public disclosure If S. had done so, then he could have protected that intellectual property....Bottom line is that I believe ABP / Split Pivot was described publicly in 2005, so both Trek and DW pissed away a bunch of money to patent something which was already in the public domain.

In the early 90s, many of us were looking for alternatives to the Horst link, and I know that a few considered using concentric pivots at the rear axle. No one except Crestone Peaks followed through with it, though, as back then introducing a special QR skewer
that had to be unthreaded from the nut and pulled out of the hub in order to remove the wheel would NOT have been accepted by the consumers of the day....
Does anyone actually care about this except the people that are making money out of it?
Its a fukkin patent. If youre worried about it youre probably afraid of losing money over this. And if youre losing money over it you shouldnt be bitching about it anonimously on the internet but take real world action.

Unless you are allready to late with taking action or just a fan boy of someone else who is too late and therefore decided to cry about it like a little girl on the internet.


Cheers.
 

John P.

Turbo Monkey
Sep 24, 2001
1,170
0
Golden, CO
Heh. I like how you changed the cbrider401's name to 'Bradflyn' when you quoted him. :)

Anyway, to answer your question, I find this discussion at least as interesting as some of the threads on here discussing whether the ideal number of shimz in a Boxxer WC high speed compression circuit is 5 or 6. *IF* (and it's a huge 'if') cbrider401's theory is correct, I think it means that any other bike mfr could use the basis of the ABP/Split Pivot technology and easily defend it against a patent challenge.

Again, I don't know whether cbrider401's theory is sound, but it's certainly interesting enough to discuss, no?

--JP
P.S. I own a Session 88 (which I love) and was in business with DW for years, so I don't have a dog in this fight.
 

cbrider401

Chimp
Dec 22, 2010
9
0
Gee, you really got me - nice insults. If you had a clue you might care. Do you know how much it adds to the final retail cost of a bike if a builder has to pay someone like DW to license Split Pivot? If the intellectual property is legit, then fine. If not (as is likely in this case), then we'll all be paying more for our next bikes than is really necessary...

The point I'm making is that ABP / Split Pivot technology was probably already in the public domain, yet both Trek and DW got patents (and they are now both trying to recoup their R&D / patent costs). Both DW's and Trek's patents will likely not hold water, and the only people who are going to win in this will be the patent attorneys.

FYI I'm not making or losing any money in the bike industry right now.
 

cbrider401

Chimp
Dec 22, 2010
9
0
Heh. I like how you changed the cbrider401's name to 'Bradflyn' when you quoted him. :)

Anyway, to answer your question, I find this discussion at least as interesting as some of the threads on here discussing whether the ideal number of shimz in a Boxxer WC high speed compression circuit is 5 or 6. *IF* (and it's a huge 'if') cbrider401's theory is correct, I think it means that any other bike mfr could use the basis of the ABP/Split Pivot technology and easily defend it against a patent challenge.

Again, I don't know whether cbrider401's theory is sound, but it's certainly interesting enough to discuss, no?

--JP
P.S. I own a Session 88 (which I love) and was in business with DW for years, so I don't have a dog in this fight.

Thanks JP
 

Kevin

Turbo Monkey
Gee, you really got me - nice insults. If you had a clue you might care. Do you know how much it adds to the final retail cost of a bike if a builder has to pay someone like DW to license Split Pivot? If the intellectual property is legit, then fine. If not (as is likely in this case), then we'll all be paying more for our next bikes than is really necessary...

The point I'm making is that ABP / Split Pivot technology was probably already in the public domain, yet both Trek and DW got patents (and they are now both trying to recoup their R&D / patent costs). Both DW's and Trek's patents will likely not hold water, and the only people who are going to win in this will be the patent attorneys.

FYI I'm not making or losing any money in the bike industry right now.
Its not that I dont have a clue. I just dont give a ****.
Bike companys are in business to make money, not to give you a cheap ride.