Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 104
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: toHELLuRIDE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    554

    Santa Cruz sues Yeti!!

    Claiming switch technology is VPP.

    Get your SB before they are discontinued.
    Bad rep!!! That's right SON!!

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    80
    Haters gotta hate, sorry Scruz.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bpnic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,168
    Quote Originally Posted by toHELLuRIDE View Post
    Claiming switch technology is VPP.

    Get your SB before they are discontinued.
    link?
    I'd hit it, but I bruise like a peach.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    325

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    314
    Ahhh lawyers . . . . Looks like frame prices will be going up again real soon!!

  6. #6
    Int'l Sales Mgr. - Yeti
    Reputation: John P.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by toHELLuRIDE View Post
    Get your SB before they are discontinued.
    Quote Originally Posted by Phatass View Post
    . . . . Looks like frame prices will be going up again real soon!!
    And in other news, the sky is falling.

    We're aware of the suit and very confident we don't infringe, based on the massive amounts of IP research we did before we developed the technology and applied for our own patent. Additionally, we're reorganizing some things on the supply chain side to actually reduce prices for 2013.

    Feel free to e-speculate all you want though . . . It's always interesting to throw out hypotheticals.

    --JP
    Yeti Cycles// Ride Driven

    Please Email rather than PM: johnp AT yeticycles DOT com

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,640

    I hope Specialized, i mean Santa Cruz loses

    SC going all Specy on the industry. Next thing you know they will withhold frames from bike shops with Yetis on the floor.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    314
    And in other news, pigs are growing wings . . . . Would love to see frame prices come down, but I will believe it when I see it. Kind of scared to see what pricing will be on the carbon SB95 next year. I'm guessing close to 2800.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Kirium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    69
    Related cases show a company called Dual Lever Suspension filing against Santa Cruz in October and again in November for patent infringement... Swings and roundabouts Santa Cruz...

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    43
    I wonder if this stems from the fact that one of the designers of the "switch" technology used by Yeti on the SBs used to work for Santa Cruz?

    I hate to see bike companies sue each other like this. It's not good for either company and drives up costs.

    I will support Yeti and "vote" with my dollars since I had been considering a Santa Cruz as one of the three bikes I've been looking to buy.

  11. #11
    Int'l Sales Mgr. - Yeti
    Reputation: John P.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by Phatass View Post
    And in other news, pigs are growing wings . . . . Would love to see frame prices come down, but I will believe it when I see it. Kind of scared to see what pricing will be on the carbon SB95 next year. I'm guessing close to 2800.
    I think a pig just flew past my window!

    2011 575 frame MSRP: $1,900
    2012 575 frame MSRP: $1,800

    Regarding the never-confirmed-to-be-in-development SB95 Carbon, it's not really possible to reduce prices on a bike that has never technically existed.

    -JP
    Yeti Cycles// Ride Driven

    Please Email rather than PM: johnp AT yeticycles DOT com

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    314
    Ya got me on that one JP Just for reference, when I bought my Tallboy for $2100 I thought that was a lot. Now it is close to $2700. Crazy. Of course it seems that the lawyers over at SC have been more active than most

  13. #13
    D93
    D93 is offline
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    111
    Prices are going down. I paid $3100 for my 575. Two weeks later Yeti dumped the build price by 1/3. Tough pill for a recent Trek convert to swallow. Something I'll consider when replacing my XC in Feb.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    80
    That's just a timing issue. To not have that happen to someone, somewhere they would either have to never lower the price or send a refund to everyone.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: KrisRayner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    431
    Kinda rediculous to me. Why aren't they going after Niner for their CVA suspension or any other number counter-rotating twin link suspensions.....
    Guess their just going after the next best competition that could impact their business.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bpnic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,168
    Quote Originally Posted by KrisRayner View Post
    Guess their just going after the next best competition that could impact their business.
    This. ^^^ Serious competition from the Switch 26/29" bikes.

    Weagle *sounded annoyed* on the boards too, just about when that beautiful Ibis 9'er came out a few weeks after the Sb.

    Even Steber from Intense was lurking here on the Yeti board when the bike was introduced.

    I'm sure it was all the Interbike/outerbike attention that pissed 'em off. That's the grand showcase.

    Imo, if DW didn't/couldn't go after Giant's Mastro (DW link), or Trek's ABP (DW split pivot), SC has zero chance.

    *edit
    Last edited by bpnic; 12-11-2011 at 06:57 PM.
    I'd hit it, but I bruise like a peach.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nybike1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,817
    Quote Originally Posted by KrisRayner View Post
    Kinda rediculous to me. Why aren't they going after Niner for their CVA suspension or any other number counter-rotating twin link suspensions.....
    Guess their just going after the next best competition that could impact their business.
    Actually, CVA suspension is a co-rotating mini-link suspension design, as are most mini-links on the market.

    Regardless, I was curious to see what Santacruz's basis for the lawsuit might be and so I went back to read the VPP patent (US 6206397). Interestingly, the first principal claim of the patent does not mention anything about counter-rotating links. It's a broader claim asserting rights to a suspension design which results in a larger radius of curvature of the axle path to provide a "chain lengthening effect" (as referred to in the patent) at the beginning of the travel to enable efficient pedaling, followed by a smaller radius of curvature of the axle path deeper in the shock stroke to reduce pedal feedback.

    The first dependent claim (claim 2) then expands on this concept to define a predetermined position in the travel and split the axle path in a lower curve segment extending generally below said position at which there is an increasing rate of chainstay lengthening with increasing compression and an upper curve segment extending generally above said position in which there is a decreasing rate of chainstay lengthening with increasing compression. In the second principal claim (claim 14), the concept of counter-rotating links is introduced and the first principal claim is narrowed to this embodiment of the design.

    Here is another interesting tidbit from the detailed description of the invention:

    "... [T]his allows the system to employ what is known as a "chainstay lengthening effect" (i.e., an effective increase in the distance between the bottom bracket shell and the axle of the rear wheel) at selected points in the compression cycle. In those phases where the chainstay lengthening effect increases, tension on the drive chain causes the suspension assembly to provide an upward force on the frame in response to the application of downward force on the pedals. Below the position (referred to herein as the "preferred pedaling position") to which the suspension is compressed by the mass of the rider resting on the seat tube, there is a lesser chainstay lengthening effect, with the result that there is a lesser or minimal effect of chain tension on the suspension below the preferred pedaling position so that it remains compliant to unpowered vertical inputs by the rider (i.e., rider weight) and to bump forces caused by the terrain. The net effect of this is that the system is able to "isolate" pedal inputs from terrain inputs, i.e., the suspension will not compress/extend due to pedal forces which are exerted by the rider, but will remain compliant to irregularities of the terrain."

    From the Yeti literature and the
    Pinkbike article on the release of Switch technology and the SB-66 we learn that:

    "Pedaling Efficiency -
    In the early stage of travel the micro link is guiding the lower pivot of the swing arm rearward. This rearward direction counteracts chain forces and gives the bike excellent anti-squat characteristics.

    Plush, Controlled Travel -
    As the bike moves past sag, the micro-link rotates in the opposite direction. This switch in direction controls the rate of chain stay growth, which is necessary to eliminate pedal feedback and allows for uninhibited suspension performance."

    So to summarize: rearward axle path early in the travel (larger radius of curvature) followed by a tighter radius of curvature to reduce pedal feedback. You have to admit, the two inventions don't sound completely unrelated. Of course the reduction to practice as laid in the detailed description is very important in patent arguments and that's where Yeti may have an out with the whole eccentric link thing (not counter rotating mini-links).

    It'll be interesting to see how this one unfolds. Maybe it'll go the way of ABP/Split Pivot where each party has been allowed to practice their invention.


  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bpnic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,168
    Good Stuff Nyb'71,
    Here is a quote from DW himself from the Ibis forum during the late Summer of this year.


    Question Originally Posted by rodeoj 8/31/11
    2 - The new pivots, and the eccentric, seems really close to Yeti's new Switch. Now obviously DW link has been around a long time and Yeti's work I think is to be taken as a compliment to your engineering skills. Does Yeti's direction pay homage, and is there play back and forth in a friendly competitive way between these two designs?

    // This probably belongs in the suspension forum but since Dave is posting here I couldn't help myself. Though Yeti just came forth with their sb-95 5 inch 29er switch bike.

    DW's Answer:
    Eccentric pivots are nothing new, I mean, one of the best selling line of bikes ever, the GT I-drive used one, that was my first real experience with the design. Also there is the Decathlon NEUF bike from France in production from 2001 to ???? that is strikingly similar to the Yeti. The dw-2XC design has been around for some time in testing, well before David Earle made the Yeti design public, but I'm sure people who have been paying attention to my work saw this coming a while ago. I mean, it's kind of telling when the dw-DHR has ~40mm long links and 210mm of travel that things can get a lot smaller.

    If anything, to me, the Yeti design seems a heck of a lot closer to a VPP in terms of performance, and almost nowhere near a dw-link. It relies on a very low leverage ratio in the early travel (regressive in the beginning travel) to force a lot of oil through the shock and develop a lot of low speed compression damping.

    dw-links don't need to do that, the linkage effectively counteracts the effects of acceleration on the suspension, so I can concentrate on getting the most traction out of the shock as I can. The goal is as little compromise as possible, and that's an absolutely huge distinction, I believe in the favor of my design.

    Also, as a funny side note, almost every dw-link bike since 2005 has a link that "switches" directions. I have never seen it as a notable distinction becuase it has absolutely no direct bearing on performance. All of the old Marin Quad bikes and I believe a couple of the really old VPP bikes did as well. I'm sure there are more that I'm not remembering off the top of my head (been working for 15hrs, I'm beat). It's always interesting to read the marketing fodder thrown out there. I try to keep discussion about my designs to the facts, it's safer that way, and for sure I feel better about it... It's a weird world though.
    __________________
    I'd hit it, but I bruise like a peach.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nybike1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,817
    Quote Originally Posted by _dw View Post
    If anything, to me, the Yeti design seems a heck of a lot closer to a VPP in terms of performance, and almost nowhere near a dw-link. It relies on a very low leverage ratio in the early travel (regressive in the beginning travel) to force a lot of oil through the shock and develop a lot of low speed compression damping.
    Hey B,

    I had not seen this discussion in the Ibis forum. In fact, I had completely forgotten about the eccentric pivots in the Ibis Ripley (tells you how much attention I have been paying to full suspension 29ers ). I think _dw's statement quoted above reinforces what I posted earlier about the similarities between Switch and VPP from the Klassen patent and Yeti literature.

    Enough with the lawyer speak. You have extensive riding time on three bikes all in the same rough range of travel (5.5in to 6in) with VPP, dw-link, and Switch technology. What do they feel like? How do they compare uphill, downhill, and in technical riding? Obviously geometries and frame build are vastly different and this colors the attitude of the bike, but could you take a swag at the feel of the suspension and if you noticed any similarities or differences?

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    230
    Quote Originally Posted by nybike1971 View Post
    Hey B,

    Enough with the lawyer speak. You have extensive riding time on three bikes all in the same rough range of travel (5.5in to 6in) with VPP, dw-link, and Switch technology. What do they feel like? How do they compare uphill, downhill, and in technical riding? Obviously geometries and frame build are vastly different and this colors the attitude of the bike, but could you take a swag at the feel of the suspension and if you noticed any similarities or differences?
    I would love to know too as I am currently struggling between a SB-66 and a DW Turner 5.SPot.

    Thanks,

    Tejas

  21. #21
    Huckin' trails
    Reputation: David C's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    6,119
    All this is BS. Yeti's SB technology is a bad replica of GT's original i-Drive system. I'm gonna file up a claim against them in the name of GT and I'll get the filthy money for taking back to GT the technology
    Quote Originally Posted by NicoleB28 View Post
    topless. that's what all mtb girls do. we go ride, get topless, have pillow fights in the woods, scissor, then ride home!

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: KrisRayner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    431
    Quote Originally Posted by nybike1971 View Post
    Actually, CVA suspension is a co-rotating mini-link suspension design, as are most mini-links on the market.

    Regardless, I was curious to see what Santacruz's basis for the lawsuit might be and so I went back....
    I stand corrected. I made the statement without ensuring technical accuracy of it.

    What I was trying to get at was the seeming pointless nature of going after Yeti when there's so many other suspension designs that SEEM similar.

    As far as Yeti being the "next best to impact their business", it wasn't meant to be a reference to the size of Yeti as a company, but rather the marketing and perception impact. The mountain biking business/industry is very much about the next "big thing" and given the amount of press the SB-66 has gotten, it would seem to be taking some of the marketing luster off VPP.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nybike1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,817
    Quote Originally Posted by KrisRayner View Post
    I stand corrected. I made the statement without ensuring technical accuracy of it.

    What I was trying to get at was the seeming pointless nature of going after Yeti when there's so many other suspension designs that SEEM similar.

    As far as Yeti being the "next best to impact their business", it wasn't meant to be a reference to the size of Yeti as a company, but rather the marketing and perception impact. The mountain biking business/industry is very much about the next "big thing" and given the amount of press the SB-66 has gotten, it would seem to be taking some of the marketing luster off VPP.
    Hey Kris,

    I get your point and agree with you: the SB-66 and 95 definitely stole the show at Interbike this year and it may have ruffled a few feathers. I edited my original response right after posting it because it was just nitpicking and unnecessarily confrontational.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    217
    we're reorganizing some things on the supply chain side to actually reduce prices for 2013.
    Good news!


    About this notice.... JP you and the rest of yeti people will be glad, this SC movement confirm a good job :-).


    And off topic question. when we can see the the info about sb-66c in the web? (final spacs, prices...)

  25. #25
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,665
    Lots of people saw this lawsuit coming. Even the guys from Intense were saying they were surprised that Yeti was cranking out a carbon version already, but Yeti's confident...

    Off-topic, but does the SB-95 have one of those modular BB caps that allows for ISCG tabs, since it technically can be ridden like a 6" 26" bike? Rode the SB95 pro-production demo in small and it had front shifting prob and suffered from chain drop. The rear triangle wasn't as stiff as I would've liked too. The front end was surprisingly solid and dialed feeling though. If it had a firmer rear, it'd be one sexy bike that I wouldn't be able to wait to ride.

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. santa cruz or Yeti
    By samurai75 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-19-2011, 02:14 PM
  2. Santa CRuz 575 vs yeti asr 7
    By Will963 in forum All Mountain
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-22-2010, 09:35 AM
  3. Yeti vs Santa Cruz
    By jay12 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 12-22-2009, 07:05 AM
  4. Yeti vs. Santa Cruz
    By 25lbs&counting in forum Bike and Frame discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-03-2009, 12:56 PM
  5. Yeti DH Vs. Santa Cruz DH?
    By cocopuffberman in forum Yeti
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-12-2004, 09:20 AM

Posting Permissions

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