Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 156
  1. #126
    Location: SouthPole of MN
    Reputation: duggus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,378
    Quote Originally Posted by GSJ1973 View Post
    I just can't seem to get past a 30 pound rigid bike and riding uphill just sucks.
    Hmmm... I find quite the opposite... way more traction with 5" tires than my lightweight Kona with 2.25" tires. Espessially in loose conditions.

  2. #127
    mtbr member
    Reputation: temporoad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    327
    Quote Originally Posted by duggus View Post
    Hmmm... I find quite the opposite... way more traction with 5" tires than my lightweight Kona with 2.25" tires. Espessially in loose conditions.
    You are absolutely right, I am climbing stuff I have no business climbing and would never have attempted with my FS bike.
    BBB (big beautiful bike)

  3. #128
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,840
    Quote Originally Posted by Wildfire View Post
    I'm not sure how that impression came across. Running a tiny operation out of a small Alaska town, I didn't have the considerable resources it would have taken to "go after" the companies that appropriated my offset frame design and trade name (Fatbike:::Fatback. Seriously). They knew that and took full advantage of it. Nobody asked permission. All I could do was complain about it and nobody really wants to hear somebody whine about something all the time.

    My point was that it seems a bit hypocritical to say the offset design was "free and available" and then grouse when the same thing happens to to your favorite brand which certainly has been no angel either.

    I understand your position, and apologize for misinterpreting your thoughts on the subject. I don't know the circumstances surrounding Surly deciding to use your design. If they were as shady and deceitful as Salsa's methods, then by all means, call them out on it here.

    *but*

    The Pugsley had been around for 5 or more years when Salsa came out with the Mukluk. It was being used by you, Surly and several custom builders on a consistent basis. That was the basis of my comment that it was available when Salsa decided to go a different route and poach a design they new was patent pending, by taking advantage of a smaller business with less corporate savvy.

    Your company name was Wildfire, not Fatbike. Fat Bike(one of your product names) had become the de-facto term for all bikes in the genre by the time Greg decided to use Fatback as a company name. I really don't think it would have taken much resources beyond driving to Anchorage and letting Greg know you didn't like him using a similar name over a beer to correct that if it really worried you.

  4. #129
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,840
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy FitzGibbon View Post
    I would be interested to know what "measurements and factors", other than widening the crank for proper chainline, are critical to a 170mm rear end. I can't see how a Fatback drivetrain (or any 170 bike, for that matter) isn't just a standard MTB widened 35mm.


    Two of the things that patent attorneys look at are novelty and non-obviousness. The novelty of Fatback bikes is dubious- 165mm and 170mm hubs, and 100mm bottom brackets, were already established when Fatback started. Though Fatback did produce the first 170mm cassette hub, that's not grounds for a patent. Widening a hub 5mm from an existing size is not novel or non-obvious.

    This is from the US Patent Code:

    If an invention is not exactly the same as prior products or processes (which are referred to as the "prior art"), then it is considered novel. However, in order for an invention to be patentable, it must not only be novel, but it must also be a nonobvious improvement over the prior art. This determination is made by deciding whether the invention sought to be patented would have been obvious "to one of ordinary skill in the art." In other words, the invention is compared to the prior art and a determination is made whether the differences in the new invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the type of technology used in the invention.

    Anyone who wants to put wider tires on a bike knows that they need to move the chain outward. I don't think it could be too much more obvious. Since Fatbacks don't have any special parts, other than what are in essence just standard parts that have been widened, I'm kind of confused about what they were actually trying to patent. Just because an idea involves proprietary parts does not mean it is patentable.

    I give Fatback all the credit for developing the 170mm rear end for snow bikes. But to say that Salsa "stole" the design from them is ridiculous, because it's a design that would be obvious to anyone with a basic working knowledge of bicycles and geometry.
    It's not ridiculous considering the methods Salsa used. It's really not my place to say any more on that or the other parts of the patent. I've said all I can say on it. We've already just repeated what we said a year or two ago. Any more talk without more info released is pretty useless.

  5. #130
    Deroymac
    Reputation: Spoon Farmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    31
    As a rider of a Moonlander (first fat-snowbike) and 2012, S-Works, FS, 29er, I can't for my Big Boys Fatbike!

  6. #131
    FatBike Fiend
    Reputation: Wildfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    871
    Quote Originally Posted by sean salach View Post
    I understand your position, and apologize for misinterpreting your thoughts on the subject. I don't know the circumstances surrounding Surly deciding to use your design. If they were as shady and deceitful as Salsa's methods, then by all means, call them out on it here.

    *but*

    The Pugsley had been around for 5 or more years when Salsa came out with the Mukluk. It was being used by you, Surly and several custom builders on a consistent basis. That was the basis of my comment that it was available when Salsa decided to go a different route and poach a design they new was patent pending, by taking advantage of a smaller business with less corporate savvy.

    Your company name was Wildfire, not Fatbike. Fat Bike(one of your product names) had become the de-facto term for all bikes in the genre by the time Greg decided to use Fatback as a company name. I really don't think it would have taken much resources beyond driving to Anchorage and letting Greg know you didn't like him using a similar name over a beer to correct that if it really worried you.
    Sean, as I understand it,"Patent pending" does not in any way prohibit another company from using the design. It simply means a patent application has been filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office. If the patent is eventually successfully awarded, the other companies then have to cease and desist from manufacturing the product or agree to a licensing arrangement. The catch is that there is no enforcement agency to compel the companies to stop making the product, that responsibility is entirely incumbent upon the company holding the patent to pursue through litigation. It's a slippery slope.

    Try making an adhesive dressing and calling the product Band Ade and see how far you get. It doesn't matter if it's a brand name or a product name, it's still using that company's repute and product name in an unprofessional manner. Maybe that thought should have occurred to Greg when he chose that name. And he's not even the worst offender. My biggest mistake was naively underestimating the cut throat nature of the bike industry who sat back and watched while their future products were developed, tested and proven for free and then started squabbling about small differences in design.

    Anyway, it's all water over the bridge and petroleum off a duck's back at this point. Tirade over, back to your regularly scheduled programming... Good luck on that patent.

    So, been riding lately?

  7. #132
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Wildfire View Post
    Sean, as I understand it,"Patent pending" does not in any way prohibit another company from using the design. It simply means a patent application has been filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office. If the patent is eventually successfully awarded, the other companies then have to cease and desist from manufacturing the product or agree to a licensing arrangement. The catch is that there is no enforcement agency to compel the companies to stop making the product, that responsibility is entirely incumbent upon the company holding the patent to pursue through litigation. It's a slippery slope.

    Try making an adhesive dressing and calling the product Band Ade and see how far you get. It doesn't matter if it's a brand name or a product name, it's still using that company's repute and product name in an unprofessional manner. Maybe that thought should have occurred to Greg when he chose that name. And he's not even the worst offender. My biggest mistake was naively underestimating the cut throat nature of the bike industry who sat back and watched while their future products were developed, tested and proven for free and then started squabbling about small differences in design.

    Anyway, it's all water over the bridge and petroleum off a duck's back at this point. Tirade over, back to your regularly scheduled programming... Good luck on that patent.

    So, been riding lately?
    That is correct. The phrase "Patent Pending" has no legal effect. All it does is warn other manufacturers that a patent has been applied for, and that they may be liable for damages or back-dated royalties if the patent is eventually granted. Enforcing that is entirely up to the holder of the patent- presumably, if Fatback's patent is ever granted, Fatback could sue Salsa, along with any other manufacturers who have sold 170mm frames- provided that the frames somehow infringe on the patent.

  8. #133
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by sean salach View Post
    It's not ridiculous considering the methods Salsa used. It's really not my place to say any more on that or the other parts of the patent. I've said all I can say on it. We've already just repeated what we said a year or two ago. Any more talk without more info released is pretty useless.
    Fair enough, if you don't feel comfortable giving the details I understand. I reserve the right to remain skeptical about the patentability of Fatback's design, at least until I have seen evidence of some novel or non-obvious component of it.

  9. #134
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,840
    Quote Originally Posted by Wildfire View Post
    Sean, as I understand it,"Patent pending" does not in any way prohibit another company from using the design. It simply means a patent application has been filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office. If the patent is eventually successfully awarded, the other companies then have to cease and desist from manufacturing the product or agree to a licensing arrangement. The catch is that there is no enforcement agency to compel the companies to stop making the product, that responsibility is entirely incumbent upon the company holding the patent to pursue through litigation. It's a slippery slope.

    Try making an adhesive dressing and calling the product Band Ade and see how far you get. It doesn't matter if it's a brand name or a product name, it's still using that company's repute and product name in an unprofessional manner. Maybe that thought should have occurred to Greg when he chose that name. And he's not even the worst offender. My biggest mistake was naively underestimating the cut throat nature of the bike industry who sat back and watched while their future products were developed, tested and proven for free and then started squabbling about small differences in design.

    Anyway, it's all water over the bridge and petroleum off a duck's back at this point. Tirade over, back to your regularly scheduled programming... Good luck on that patent.

    So, been riding lately?

    I've been doing a lot more skiing of the type we were doing when I ran into you that morning on Nancy Lake Parkway. There's been a little bit of riding in between, but lots of on and off trail adventures trying to teach myself how to ski. How about you?

  10. #135
    Dirt Huffer
    Reputation: AC/BC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,435
    Isn't QBP a "big boy"? I find the premise of this thread a bit ironic.

  11. #136
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    240
    I can't see SRAM manufacturing a fatbike BB and crankset for the current niche marketplace. Much more likely they've been engaged by one of the big boys.

    My On-One Fatty came with a Truvativ (SRAM) crankset/BB

  12. #137
    Dirt Huffer
    Reputation: AC/BC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,435
    Quote Originally Posted by warmonkey View Post
    I can't see SRAM manufacturing a fatbike BB and crankset for the current niche marketplace. Much more likely they've been engaged by one of the big boys.

    My On-One Fatty came with a Truvativ (SRAM) crankset/BB

    Also, how popular are their 165mm cranks? Not very.... It probably doesn't take much to manufacture a slightly longer spindle.

    Plus SRAM probably feels the need to capture this market before Shimano does to one up them.

  13. #138
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    709
    Quote Originally Posted by AC/BC View Post
    Also, how popular are their 165mm cranks? Not very.... It probably doesn't take much to manufacture a slightly longer spindle.

    Plus SRAM probably feels the need to capture this market before Shimano does to one up them.
    The howitzer 100mm BB is leftover from when some downhillers were using them, but the X9 thing is new, and must be for fat bikes, but yes, it is not very much trouble to cut a few spindles with an extra 30mm or so, and press them in.
    At first, I was thinking the 100mm specs listed for the 2013 X9 crank meant a big boy must be involved, but Sram may be going for aftermarket sales to the existing fat bikers. I don't think they would bother though, and they haven't started advertising them.
    Surly has been advertising the OD crank for some time, and I haven't seen anyone selling one,

  14. #139
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    244
    My On-One Fatty came with a Truvativ (SRAM) crankset/BB
    Those Truvativ cranks and BB were originally produced for downhill bikes back in the ISIS era. IMO, he Howitzer looks like a pretty good design. Its probably what ISIS should have been; with external bearings instead of the teeny tiny bearings that ISIS was forced to use.

    But the Howitzer stuff is proprietary; other manufacturers don't support it. And my guess would be that SRAM will phase out the Howitzer stuff pretty soon. All of their newer cranks use GXP external bearings for regular threaded BBs or some flavor of the BB30 and similar for other types of frames.

  15. #140
    FatBike Fiend
    Reputation: Wildfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    871
    Quote Originally Posted by sean salach View Post
    I've been doing a lot more skiing of the type we were doing when I ran into you that morning on Nancy Lake Parkway. There's been a little bit of riding in between, but lots of on and off trail adventures trying to teach myself how to ski. How about you?
    Same. Love the backcountry nordic norm set up. Some biking. Mostly work. Thanks for the banter, all in good fun. Peace.

  16. #141
    gran jefe
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,088
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeabuser View Post
    Wal-Mart FTW
    You were three months early, my friend.

  17. #142
    just ride
    Reputation: chequamagon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,919
    Quote Originally Posted by sean salach View Post
    It's not ridiculous considering the methods Salsa used. It's really not my place to say any more on that or the other parts of the patent. I've said all I can say on it. We've already just repeated what we said a year or two ago. Any more talk without more info released is pretty useless.
    Seriously, this argument is still going on?

    Well, I was the one that was in negotiation with Fatback about the licensing, so any and all accusations you make about "methods" are direct accusations to me and how I conduct things. There are numerous nuances to this conversation that I cannot speak about on this forum, but I can offer a simple summation now that we are many years after when this took place.

    Legally, to claim something is "patent pending", it must be labeled as such on the product, and have an accepted patent application into the US Patent Office. I have seen no evidence of either. If a patent is issued, the product must display the patent number for it to be defensible.

    3 years into this now, we can easily assume one of two options:
    1. A patent application was never filed.
    or
    2. A patent was never issued by USTPO because it was not a protectable idea.

    Salsa is not the big guy that would just push over a smaller company. That is not a QBP corporate belief. I was strongly encouraged to first find a way to license or purchase what we needed, but when it was not possible, we had to go our own route.

    Are we finished now? This is getting really old, and I just want to go ride a bike, not mess with this stuff.
    MTBR Disclaimer: I work for Salsa Cycles
    Ride: www.chequamegon100.com

  18. #143
    mtbr member
    Reputation: veloborealis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    634

    Ho... hum

    Quote Originally Posted by chequamagon View Post
    Seriously, this argument is still going on?
    That was back in January. Walgoose Beast is feeding all the serious fat chat these days.
    The older I get the better I was...

  19. #144
    Ride good on the internet
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by veloborealis View Post
    That was back in January. Walgoose Beast is feeding all the serious fat chat these days.

    Ya, and I'm FUC***G sick of that thread too.

  20. #145
    Location: SouthPole of MN
    Reputation: duggus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,378
    Quote Originally Posted by veloborealis View Post
    That was back in January. Walgoose Beast is feeding all the serious fat chat these days.
    chequamagon didn't revive this thread again.
    Last edited by duggus; 04-05-2013 at 09:05 AM.

  21. #146
    mighty sailin' man
    Reputation: MiniTrail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,704
    Quote Originally Posted by duggus View Post
    chequamagon didn't revive this thread again. Bill in Houston thought it would be a good opportunity to thump his Walgoose love some more.

    I'm thinking the history thread led him to this one? Right Bill?
    Quote Originally Posted by davidarnott
    wheelies, beyond being the best way over any sort of obstacle, both above or below, are are the steedliest expresstion of joy

  22. #147
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,049
    Quote Originally Posted by bikeabuser View Post
    But they're not racing tires.

    They are however, a limited supply item ... I welcome the big boys to Fat Bikes.

    Sell them at Walmart !!!
    Prediction came true.

  23. #148
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,049
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill in Houston View Post
    You were three months early, my friend.
    Yea ... I know

  24. #149
    just ride
    Reputation: chequamagon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,919
    Quote Originally Posted by MiniTrail View Post
    I'm thinking the history thread led him to this one? Right Bill?
    This thread popped up at the top of the list when I logged into the emptybeer today. Somewhere, its alive like Johnny Five
    MTBR Disclaimer: I work for Salsa Cycles
    Ride: www.chequamegon100.com

  25. #150
    gran jefe
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,088
    Quote Originally Posted by MiniTrail View Post
    I'm thinking the history thread led him to this one? Right Bill?
    Yep.

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •