Not sure what this will do to the existing DW Link bikes or whether it will be a next-gen type suspension linkage. I wonder if this linkage system will be picked up by Iron Horse or other bike mftrs...
Perhaps those with the engineering knowledge can post up their thoughts.
Check it out.
Hey Dave
I am available to test ride some prototypes, as would anyone who has been on any of the DW-Link bikes.
Wrong again, there is no contradiction there. Filing date is used to determine what is prior art and what is not. First to invent is used to determine who gets the patent to the same subject matter.
There is no point in arguing patent law with someone who does not have a full understanding of that law and have such contempt of said law to begin with. BTW, I did not accuse you of anything; I merely asked a question.
And you apparently don't have a full understanding of how flawed the patent system (the US one especially) is. You can quote what's written in the acts and laws ad nauseum but the problem you don't seem willing to accept, or admit to anyways is that its no longer being run the way it was intended when it was created, and that patents for inventions already INVENTED and with widespread prior art still keep being granted to people/companies and this concentric axle pivot is just the latest such example.
See the Felt Equilink patent for another recent example, totally ripped off from a Kavik bike design that was shown at Interbike several years ago, and who's "inventors" at Felt had visited the actual inventor, looked at his design, decided they didn't wanna license it because they realized they could go and patent it themselves and claim it as their own.
This all came out here on mtbr only a couple months ago, and there's a multi-page thread on it, with photos of Kavik's bike at Interbike several years ago. Its publically known prior art and yet Felt claims to have invented the design first. Or in another example that's become publically known on mtbr also, the actual inventor of inertia-valve shocks, is currently offering inertia-valve shocks for bikes hoping and in fact begging for specialized to try and stop him, so he can take them to court at largely their expense, to have their patents for stuff they didn't invent (nor did anyone at Fox or Rockshox or anywhere else before working for specialized) in the first place.
Both those are examples of "first to invent" not seeming to matter to the USPTO nor first to file either. They still issued patents on the same technology/inventions to other parties.
And you apparently don't have a full understanding of how flawed the patent system (the US one especially) is. You can quote what's written in the acts and laws ad nauseum but the problem you don't seem willing to accept, or admit to anyways is that its no longer being run the way it was intended when it was created, and that patents for inventions already INVENTED and with widespread prior art still keep being granted to people/companies and this concentric axle pivot is just the latest such example.
See the Felt Equilink patent for another recent example, totally ripped off from a Kavik bike design that was shown at Interbike several years ago, and who's "inventors" at Felt had visited the actual inventor, looked at his design, decided they didn't wanna license it because they realized they could go and patent it themselves and claim it as their own.
This all came out here on mtbr only a couple months ago, and there's a multi-page thread on it, with photos of Kavik's bike at Interbike several years ago. Its publically known prior art and yet Felt claims to have invented the design first. Or in another example that's become publically known on mtbr also, the actual inventor of inertia-valve shocks, is currently offering inertia-valve shocks for bikes hoping and in fact begging for specialized to try and stop him, so he can take them to court at largely their expense, to have their patents for stuff they didn't invent (nor did anyone at Fox or Rockshox or anywhere else before working for specialized) in the first place.
Both those are examples of "first to invent" not seeming to matter to the USPTO nor first to file either. They still issued patents on the same technology/inventions to other parties.
I hear what you are saying but mistakes happen just like in any industry. But just because mistakes are made doesn't mean the entire system is flawed. It's like saying, IH is a really bad company because a few frames were defective. The issue in the generalization of these incidents.
Nobody is perfect and examiners are people and people makes mistakes. Hence mechanisms are in place to fix such mistakes. It's called customer service in the bike industry.
hope nobody minds me bumping this thread but i was hoping dave could comment on the apparent use of the split-pivot design on the the '08 yeti as-r seven bike...
The Yeti bike has the brake attached to the chainstay. It is a single pivot for acceleration and braking. It is not a Split Pivot design, but it easily could be retrofitted to use the Split Pivot technology, probably with some nice results.
The Yeti bike has the brake attached to the chainstay. It is a single pivot for acceleration and braking. It is not a Split Pivot design, but it easily could be retrofitted to use the Split Pivot technology, probably with some nice results.
If the brake is attached to the chainstay, then there is nothing that the design can do to "isolate braking forces". It will perform identically to any other single pivot bike (with the same main pivot location) under braking. The person that wrote the information on the other site was just confused, thats all.
The Yeti bike has the brake attached to the chainstay. It is a single pivot for acceleration and braking. It is not a Split Pivot design, but it easily could be retrofitted to use the Split Pivot technology, probably with some nice results.
my brain read chainstay as seatstay after seeing the pivot around the axle and the caliper mounting tabs above the seatstay. i guess without seeing the frame from the non drive side it's hard to discern exactly the chainstay/seatstay/pivot interface.
if the the caliper is indeed mounted to the chainstay, i would assume the chainstay is on the inside of the seatstay with the wheel mounted to the chainstay on the non drive side, yet the drive side would have the wheel mounted to the seatstay as there is no drive side chainstay. i am anything but an engineer but this just seems "wrong" for some reason. any issues with this?
Its using a 12mm thru axle and the seatstay has the dropout and derailleur hanger on the driveside. Nothing really unusual about a single-side swingarm, its been tried before on mountain bikes. The proper way to do it though would be to put the disc rotor behind the cogset (or run a gearbox) on a proprietary hub and just run a chaintstay/seatstay on the drive side and get rid of the non-drive side setup. The only reason to do it as Yeti is trying is to eliminate chainslap on the chainstay and prevent the derailleur body from slapping into the chainstay at certain suspension compression points (as all horst-link bikes suffer from, even Ellsworth ones where the pivot is as close to the axle as it can get really).
Incidently, anyone who was at Interbike in 1994 (or has the jan 1995 issue of MBA) should recall seeing the GT show bike for the euro future-bike competition, which was a yellow/blue composite version of the LTS design with composite wheels and very large hollow axles (like 3-4" diameter) that used a split pivot dropout (the seatstay and chainstay pivoted around the axle). This was a very public showing of this split-pivot idea and any decent patent lawyer would be smart enough to present this evidence for the idea as being "obvious" if it came down to a patent fight over Trek or DW or anyone else claiming to have invented it first.
^^^^^ it's not a "split pivot" design unless the brakes are on the seat stay, just having the axle as the pivot point wouldn't infringe on any patent, i dont think.
Incidently, anyone who was at Interbike in 1994 (or has the jan 1995 issue of MBA) should recall seeing the GT show bike for the euro future-bike competition, which was a yellow/blue composite version of the LTS design with composite wheels and very large hollow axles (like 3-4" diameter) that used a split pivot dropout (the seatstay and chainstay pivoted around the axle). This was a very public showing of this split-pivot idea and any decent patent lawyer would be smart enough to present this evidence for the idea as being "obvious" if it came down to a patent fight over Trek or DW or anyone else claiming to have invented it first.
^^^^^ it's not a "split pivot" design unless the brakes are on the seat stay, just having the axle as the pivot point wouldn't infringe on any patent, i dont think.
Crestone... THAT's the brand I was trying to remember the name of.... now to find one of the pictures of that frame. I seem to recall MBA reviewed a couple of them. I'm sure dw will come back and say because there wasn't a disc mount on the seatstay its not a split pivot, but that might not matter to the patent office now that they're more stringently applying the tests for obviousness again (as they were doing thirty years ago) thanks to a recent us supreme court decision. Its pretty obvious to me as a non-bike designer than if you take a bike with rim brakes mounted to the seatstays and a split pivot, that the simple modern update is to put the disc mount also on the seatstay with the split pivot. And the whole test of obviousness is supposed to be what a reasonably intelligent person in the same field could think of also. If its occurring to the non-bike designers, then chances are the bike designers will figure it out as obvious also.
"...I asked Trek, "So, what's the deal?" They told me Dave Weagle came by Trek to try and get them (Trek) to license Split Pivot several months ago. At that time, according to Trek, they (Trek) had been developing ABP for about a year. Neither party new (sic) of the other's design... "
Correct me if my logic is flawed. Treks APB is very similar to DW's split pivot design. DW stated split pivot will be marketed to lower end bikes while DW Link will remain the company's premier rear suspension platform. So a $8K Trek fuel will still have an inferior suspension to my $2K Iron Horse MKIII? Also note that Trek will only place ABP on the higher end Fuel bikes. The lower end models get a different suspension.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Mountain Bike Reviews Forum
15.4M posts
515.2K members
Since 1990
A forum community dedicated to Mountain Bike owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about bike parts, components, deals, performance, modifications, classifieds, trails, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!