how are they different?
and i wonder this means for Split Pivot being licensed to other companies
Trek Awarded REAL Split Pivot Patent: 7,837,213
- Thread starter bradflyn
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 8=============> = trek 8=======> = dw 8=> = bradflyn abp=angrybitchingpatents bacon > bradflyn be creative ... brad doesnt understand ip bradflyn = troll bradfyln suckin trek cack dw sh1ts pure gold dw split pivot your mom. ih8rice = ih8christ man train on rm nemesis project brad? patened mouth jizz pivot split ass to tit pooooop rm = dw butt buddie rm now tea party angry! rm suckin dw cock schmeck me trek! sniff my grundle split profit trek fallatio session wtf is fallatio?
and i wonder this means for Split Pivot being licensed to other companies
I'm glad if they exist "side by side"
I got to ride the new Devinci Dixon (all-mtn) about 6 weeks back, and it felt rather nice even compared to my FSR-style Devinci Hectik
glad to see that Trek and DW can co-exist
I got to ride the new Devinci Dixon (all-mtn) about 6 weeks back, and it felt rather nice even compared to my FSR-style Devinci Hectik
glad to see that Trek and DW can co-exist
They are a bit different. A shock tuned for a Split Pivot won't work on a Trek and vice versa. I am sitting about 10 feet from a Split Pivot licensed to a different company.
Last edited:
That would be true of most suspension designs even using the same design (FSR, VPP, DW, ABP, Split-pivot, etc) depending on application - an XC frame is going need a different shock tune and variation on the design than a DH bike. Designers emphasis characteristics differently others which is why people like certain brands more than others.
Also frames are tailored to certain shocks or shock types (air or coil) when designed. This is why 5th element shocks felt like crap on older frames years ago not designed for their curve - two FSR frames would still be FSR frames even though one was designed for 5th element - doesn't mean they are different suspension designs.
The different tune need would not show ABP and splitpivot are different designs.
Last edited:
wrong
What the hell does the shock tune have to do with anything? Its completely irrelevant. ABP and Split pivot deal with braking action, from what I understand. How the shock is compressed afterwards is a totally seperate story.
Repeat this three times in front of a mirror.
Single pivot floating brake, single pivot floating brake, single pivot floating brake.....
Exactly! thats why I can't figure out what the dribble is about the shock tunes above...
I hate the internets.
I hate the internets.
The Split Pivot depends on shock tune quite a bit, in the patent it is the splitting of the braking forces and acceleration forces. Trek's patent has a lot to do with the shock placement...it must be floating according to their patent.
TREK
Bicycle rear wheel suspension system
Abstract
A bicycle frame assembly having a number of rotatable members configured to absorb shocks and impacts associated with operation of the bicycle. The assembly includes a frame constructed to support a rider and a chain stay having a rearward end that extends toward a wheel hub and a forward end that is pivotably connected to the frame. An absorber is pivotably connected to the forward end of the chain stay and extends to a rocker arm that is pivotably connected to the frame. A seat stay is pivotably connected to a rearward end of the rocker arm and extends to the rearward end of the chain stay. The rearward ends of the seat stay and the chain stay are pivotably connected to rotate about a common axis.
Inventors: Colegrove; James (Lake Mills, WI), Howes; Dylan (Monona, WI), Gonzalez; Jose (Santa Clarita, CA)
Assignee: Trek Bicycle Corporation (Waterloo, WI)
Appl. No.: 11/735,816
Filed: April 16, 2007
Split Pivot
Vehicle suspension systems for seperated acceleration responses
Abstract
The invention relates to suspension systems comprising, in certain embodiments, a pivoting means concentric to a wheel rotation axis so that braking forces can be controlled by placement of an instant force center, and so that acceleration forces can be controlled by a swinging wheel link.
Inventors: Weagle; David (Edgartown, MA)
Assignee: Split Pivot, Inc. (Edgartown, MA)
Appl. No.: 11/510,522
Filed: August 25, 2006
TREK
Bicycle rear wheel suspension system
Abstract
A bicycle frame assembly having a number of rotatable members configured to absorb shocks and impacts associated with operation of the bicycle. The assembly includes a frame constructed to support a rider and a chain stay having a rearward end that extends toward a wheel hub and a forward end that is pivotably connected to the frame. An absorber is pivotably connected to the forward end of the chain stay and extends to a rocker arm that is pivotably connected to the frame. A seat stay is pivotably connected to a rearward end of the rocker arm and extends to the rearward end of the chain stay. The rearward ends of the seat stay and the chain stay are pivotably connected to rotate about a common axis.
Inventors: Colegrove; James (Lake Mills, WI), Howes; Dylan (Monona, WI), Gonzalez; Jose (Santa Clarita, CA)
Assignee: Trek Bicycle Corporation (Waterloo, WI)
Appl. No.: 11/735,816
Filed: April 16, 2007
Split Pivot
Vehicle suspension systems for seperated acceleration responses
Abstract
The invention relates to suspension systems comprising, in certain embodiments, a pivoting means concentric to a wheel rotation axis so that braking forces can be controlled by placement of an instant force center, and so that acceleration forces can be controlled by a swinging wheel link.
Inventors: Weagle; David (Edgartown, MA)
Assignee: Split Pivot, Inc. (Edgartown, MA)
Appl. No.: 11/510,522
Filed: August 25, 2006
Nope. FSR bike designed for 5th element tune and FSR designed for shocks prior to that couldn't swap shocks and yet they are still both FSR designs.
Also floating shock mount don't accomplish anything that fixed mounts can't in cycling applications. The theoretical advantages of floating mounts aren't practical/usable/needed in cycling suspension applications (ie huge changes in leverage rates you can't get with fixed mount). It might allow flexibility in designing the frame but its just different solution in various suspension design (linkage driven single pivot, FSR, DW, etc) that yield a similar result to fixed mount versions of the same suspension design.
FSR bikes have come in both fixed and floating shock designs - that never had an effect on whether or not they were FSR bikes.
But....but...kinematics... double sheer... antisquat... TBD-watered-down-buzzword.
Design is oft iterative. To me this is just like the optimization of the headtube of the last decade. First we had the 1.125" headtube, then the introduction to the 1.5" headtube, and now to try to eak out the best balance between weight, performance, cost, manufacturability and so-forth we now have the tapered headtubes.
Years, back we had the floating brake. It had a slew of it's own issues at the time, as did manufacturing and quality control of suspension bikes. It was only a matter of time once cheaper prototyping capabilities, faster turn-around, and higher precision components were being produced that people would start using a floating brake link to drive a shock or use it as a structural member.
Sometimes I don't know what is worse. The verbal diarrhea that manufacturers spit out or that of the fanboys. Bikes are fun, yet manufacturers, designers, marketing people, and us internet nerdz do are damn-est to try to make it otherwise.
Some of these patents are lame. I mean heck, Santa Cruz APP
Fun little story. Met with a billionaire (or very near one last week) that made his money selling a telecom company. My boss is a bit like his engineering muse. Guy comes up with crazy ideas. Stuff that will likely never go anywhere, but money talks. He gets a good patent attorney, vaguely conveys a general idea, and presto, he has over 200 patents in his name.
Last edited:
I was just f'ing with you and hadn't even read the post I quoted.
Lets just simplify things here...
Suspension Types
Instant centre that doesnt migrate - what ever series of links activating the shock and tranfering brake load to the rest of the bike..
Instant centre that does migrate - what ever series of links that control the swingarm/drive the shock...
The difference is the kinematics.. OR SOMETIMES MARKETING OR FINDING A REASON TO PATENT IT
Suspension Types
Instant centre that doesnt migrate - what ever series of links activating the shock and tranfering brake load to the rest of the bike..
Instant centre that does migrate - what ever series of links that control the swingarm/drive the shock...
The difference is the kinematics.. OR SOMETIMES MARKETING OR FINDING A REASON TO PATENT IT
If SplitPivot and ABP are different in principle due to rear shock tuning then Shimano hydra brakes are different in principle from the rest of the market.
Ah, yes, the patent offices are not to examine the principles.
Ah, yes, the patent offices are not to examine the principles.
To read a patent the abstract and prefered embodiment sections are just to give a detailed example of how it can be done. These are really not useful for proving what the patent is claiming to be about but only specificially what maybe 1 tune or version can be like.
What the patent is trying to legally secure as the idea not the execusion or tune. The general idea of what the whole patent is about is in the claims section. Claims of each patent need to be compared or claims need to be looked at on prior things.
Here are just the first claims of each patent. Close/Same/Different?
DW:
1. A suspension system for a vehicle comprising a wheel link floating pivot, a control link fixed pivot, a wheel rotation axis, a wheel link, a brake link and a shock absorber, wherein said wheel link floating pivot is concentric with said wheel rotation axis; wherein said shock absorber is mounted to a link selected from the group consisting of a brake link, a control link, and a wheel link; wherein said shock absorber is selected from the group consisting of a compression gas spring, a leaf spring, a coil spring, and a fluid; and wherein force that compresses said shock absorber is transmitted through said brake link; and wherein said brake link passes on two sides of a frame member.
TREK:
1. A bicycle frame assembly comprising: a frame for supporting a rider; a swing arm having a first end pivotably connected to the frame and a second end for pivotably engaging a rear wheel assembly; a seat stay pivotably connected to the rear wheel assembly such that the seat stay and, the swing arm independently pivot about, and a rear wheel rotates about, a common axis; and a rocker arm attached to the frame and connected to an end of the seat stay opposite the common axis of rotation.
I am sure what is next is to read the manual for patent examiner's chapter 2200 that talks about reexamination of patents. Since DW got processed first but Trek later proved they are prior, there is a way to reexamine an awarded patent in light of new information.
What the patent is trying to legally secure as the idea not the execusion or tune. The general idea of what the whole patent is about is in the claims section. Claims of each patent need to be compared or claims need to be looked at on prior things.
Here are just the first claims of each patent. Close/Same/Different?
DW:
1. A suspension system for a vehicle comprising a wheel link floating pivot, a control link fixed pivot, a wheel rotation axis, a wheel link, a brake link and a shock absorber, wherein said wheel link floating pivot is concentric with said wheel rotation axis; wherein said shock absorber is mounted to a link selected from the group consisting of a brake link, a control link, and a wheel link; wherein said shock absorber is selected from the group consisting of a compression gas spring, a leaf spring, a coil spring, and a fluid; and wherein force that compresses said shock absorber is transmitted through said brake link; and wherein said brake link passes on two sides of a frame member.
TREK:
1. A bicycle frame assembly comprising: a frame for supporting a rider; a swing arm having a first end pivotably connected to the frame and a second end for pivotably engaging a rear wheel assembly; a seat stay pivotably connected to the rear wheel assembly such that the seat stay and, the swing arm independently pivot about, and a rear wheel rotates about, a common axis; and a rocker arm attached to the frame and connected to an end of the seat stay opposite the common axis of rotation.
I am sure what is next is to read the manual for patent examiner's chapter 2200 that talks about reexamination of patents. Since DW got processed first but Trek later proved they are prior, there is a way to reexamine an awarded patent in light of new information.
Say something more controversial Bradflyn. I need some entertainment.
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 coexist?? They each seem to violate the others first claim. Anyone know???
Anyway, 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)
"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 coexist?? They each seem to violate the others first claim. Anyone know???
Anyway, 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)
Bradflyn has new name?
Last edited:
