Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 104
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: toHELLuRIDE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    555

    Santa Cruz sues Yeti!!

    Claiming switch technology is VPP.

    Get your SB before they are discontinued.

  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
    1,388
    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
    323

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    315
    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
    632
    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

    Instagram: @heyjohnp

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,896

    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
    315
    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: dkr82's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    86
    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
    632
    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

    Instagram: @heyjohnp

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    315
    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
    446
    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
    1,388
    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 07:57 PM.
    I'd hit it, but I bruise like a peach.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nybike1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,882
    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
    1,388
    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
    1,882
    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
    5,848
    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
    446
    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
    1,882
    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
    4,650
    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.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,934
    I call bogus BS by SC on this one. The SB-66, in my opinion, rides totally different than a VPP bike, whereas a VPP really stiffens up early on an then lets loose in the travel mid to end, relying on chain growth/tension to control the rate of suspension, thus causing some pedal feedback as a side effect.
    I have been hammering my new 66 and the suspension rate or feel does not behave like this which is much more controlled mid-stroke and plusher at the end. Not saying it is superior to VPP or other designs, it is in fact different in suspension performance and feel for sure. I do feel a VPP type bikes climbs slightly better (roads) cause the suspension really firms up (no suppleness early on like "Switch"), coupled with inherent stiction from most air shocks makes a really stiff pedalling, high anti-squat platform with zero bob when added some LSC to it. At least that is the case of the last bike I owned and VPP's I have ridden. Actually, the VF4b (Banshee) is much closer to VPP in performance and feel than the "Switch link", IMO for sure.
    Ride On!

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Joules's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,925
    here's some e-speculation:
    my list for next new bike: SB66c, Mach 5.7 carbon, carbon nomad

    the nomad just got crossed off because of this. Same reason I'll never again own anything specialized.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,934
    Quote Originally Posted by Joules View Post
    here's some e-speculation:
    my list for next new bike: SB66c, Mach 5.7 carbon, carbon nomad

    the nomad just got crossed off because of this. Same reason I'll never again own anything specialized.
    Cool, the SB66c should be a ripper for sure. More capable than I imagine the Mach 5.7 to be. My only quimble with the 66a (alloy) is that the frame feels a bit heavy underneath me (8.0 lbs for a medium with RP23, rear axle kit and seat clamp and updated quad bearings, must be due to the heavier bearings?). Which isn't a bad thing for me, since I am pretty hard on bikes going down and weigh >200lbs. But, I can only imagine the 66c to be a total super D machine and give the Ibis HD a run for its money . If I was aimed at being competive in CAT1 SD's, either of those bikes set-up <30-32lbs whould be my ride. For Sport "cowboy category", the SB66a should do me just fine at 33-34lbs!

    I rode a NomadC on my fav local trails and wasn't all that stoked, but had a DHX air which felt like pooh on it, whereas I imagine a coil to feel much better on VPP type bikes. I actually think a DHX air "should" be good on a SB66 due to all the mid-stroke support of the suspension design, corretly some of the wallow or "dead spot" of the DHXa, but shock could add more bottom out support than the RP23, whereas I am usually all of my rear travel any time the tires or off the ground with stock SB66 set-up.
    Ride On!

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,420
    Considering the essence of rear suspension has been about the requisite degrees of freedom, axle path and shock actuation since [oh let me see] FOREVER and everything since has been diddling with pivot locations and practicalities. If SC had actually achieved their desired curvature characteristics without whoring their leverage ratio I'd maybe believe the claim had merit.

    So the lawyers will churn money and the consumer will lose.

    Funny how I learnt about instantaneous centres at uni in the 80s (not that it seemed to be a radically new or complicated topic at the time). I used an instantaneous (VPP) analysis to build new brackets for adjusting the position of the seat in my race car in about 1998 - my inspiration at the time was the humble "up and over" garage door. The wheels of the same racecar are attached to uprights that articulate on unequal length double wishbones and actuate coil over shock damping systems. Some racecars use push rods and linkages for packaging issues and to control the leverage ratio. All such systems have parallels in mountain bike suspension, which means that none of the mountain bike arrangements are novel.

    The only patent jurisdiction I know of in which such false protection is offered is with the US patent system. Other patent authorities have much higher expectations for proven novelty of invention. A system is broken when it cannot distinguish the competing claims of novelty of the genuinely new from the simple matter of two pivoting links and a bunch of bearings controlling planar motion and shock actuation.

    There is nothing novel in the engineering of mountain bike suspension at all apart from whacked out ideas like Kona's magic link. If every single pivot location between one manufacturer's design and its competitor's design were eerily coincident across all bike sizes, then maybe I would be inclined to assess the level of original work performed during the analysis, but that is not this case.

    When people ask me about my SB-66 on the trail and whether "the linkage does what 'they' say it does", I reply that the Yeti is made from all the latest and greatest shiny marketing. This always raises a smile and it gets down the nub of the matter that nuance in setup and differences between rider have much more to do with it than a magic mm here or there in a suspension path.

    Stupid Santa Cruz. You've just given a really good reason for people to favour your competitor's products.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bpnic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,388
    Quote Originally Posted by nybike1971 View Post
    Hey B,

    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'll do my best, but I'll warn you, I'm not very (small) detail oriented.

    IMO:

    All three suspension platforms pedal most terrain with perfection, with the DW (Mojo) and the Switch (SB-66) having a much firmer platform throughout the entire range of travel. My DW edged the Switch mainly because it had a Factory Push'ed rear end, so I'll have to post back after Pushing the rear end of the Sb-66. It could turn the tides. The Ibis handled technical climbing better, but again, could've been the Push tuned rp23.

    The VPP bikes (Blur LT and 5.5) felt better pedaling up/down/through gnar, and I'da kept either one but both had issues (mostly wagging rear ends). The VPP bikes handled pedaling *through* and *up* rough technical trails better than the DW and Switch. They just ate it up, whereas the DW and Switch feel like less travel bikes. I usually have to look down at the rp23's (preload setting o-ring) to confirm full travel was used. All rear ends descended about the same, pedaling or not.

    I'll try and keep this post regulated solely to quality of rear travel. Flex, bearing issues, frame stiffness, geometry, quality control, and customer service issues between the four different bikes and their respective companies will be saved for another day. Some bikes felt great on large jumps and drops, where others just feel/felt wrong....for mostly geometric reasons.

    I've also spent time on first generation I-drives, which I think are incredibly underrated platforms. Some saddle time on both Horst link and single pivot bikes too.
    Most bikes had a Lyrik 160mm mounted to the front and an Rp23 underneath.
    I'd hit it, but I bruise like a peach.

  31. #31
    Huckin' trails
    Reputation: David C's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    5,848
    I'm still rocking an original i-Drive from my '00 GT XCR 3000 and I have to say that climbing roots and XC level rocks/gnar stuff is like a dream. Using the original Judy Race with 100mm plus a rear SID Dual Air, also the original. Now I bet having a perfectly tuned/valved RP23 and a nice Fox also well tuned would be close to a perfect 100mm FS climber. Rear wheel just track around rocks, leaving you floating on a cloud and steady thanks to no more pedal kickback. 2 downsides however are slow action of the rear end in gnarly descents and seems to suck up pedaling power on flat pavement, but like I said, a shock from today's might make all the difference.

    So how does the SB technology compare to the i-Drive action on both ups and downs plus flat pavement ?

    I really do like how Yeti's managed to create a more compact i-Drive type eccentric suspension design with their SwitchBox, but I feel like they basically copy the main i-Drive idea and claim it theirs. But at the same time, GT did left out the i-Drive and went for their Independent Suspension design, and I would guess it was due to the i-Drive being kinda heavy back then ?

    I'd love to test ride a SB-66... But chances might be close to none in my area having only 2 Yeti dealers and usually those bikes are orders to customers and not sitting in a showroom collecting dust.
    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!

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    217
    Really... an eccentric it's only a little link with a housing arround :-).

    In my opinion we have 2 options in the suspension systems. Fixed CIR based system and mobile CIR based system. the rest is "lastnames" and patents to protect developments :-)

  33. #33
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,650
    Which Mojo, b? MojoHD is pretty good while the SL is laughable. The Yeti ASR5 inspires far more confidence than the SL--SL just felt like poo with its flex and poor pedaling. Didn't ride the SB66, since the SB95 was the show stealer and anyone who rode both was more impressed by the 95 over the 66. The SB95 feels like it's really limited on travel, but is extremely smooth through its travel. Maybe a bit too linear for me. I didn't take it on asphalt, but it was pretty active on climbs, but not in a bouncy way. On drops, the SB95s travel really felt like it was 5". It didn't bottom out harshly, but the rear twisted and chain dropped each time, making for kind of sketchy landings. Does better than my other 29er, Superfly 100, in that regard though, which feels more damped but flexier. I wish I could have some damping setting to make better use of it without needing to add more air. It felt balanced with the Fox 34 120 up front though. I reset the o-ring on both ends 3 times and got at least 115mm travel out of the fork and full out of the rear. The front of the SB-95 really inspired you to go as fast of you could, but the rear's flex kind of made it hard to follow through. It was fun using the flex to sort of sling it, once you got a feel for the flex. I guess that's Yeti's style, is to go for the drifty rears. They don't too bad in off-cambers and ruts, but in corners, they slide and lock into ruts and encourage you to do cutties. Might just be the behavior of the tires. I mentioned a shifting problem which was caused by the direct mount location on the pre-production bikes being too high. I couldn't even shift into the big ring and spun out the 32-11 on any slightly downsloping fairly straight trail.

    That all said, the SB95 is the only one on my list of possible bikes that could replace my SF100, but just not enough for me to fork up the cash. I'll wait for the SB95c to see it it's any better.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bpnic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,388
    Quote Originally Posted by Varaxis View Post
    Which Mojo, b? MojoHD is pretty good while the SL is laughable. The Yeti ASR5 inspires far more confidence than the SL--SL just felt like poo with its flex and poor pedaling..
    It was a classic Mojo built close to an HD with a Lyrik, thru axles, and a solid parts spec.
    I tried to ride it like an HD too; with it's lopes link and CrossLine wheels, flex actually wasn't terribly noticeable.
    It handled the occasional 10' double or 8' drop without to much fuss, right NYB'71?

    As for my previous post, I was trying to just review the rear ends only. Tons of other variables led me to love or hate each bike, but usually it wasn't quality of rear wheel travel.
    I mean, we're talking three world class suspensions here after all, aren't we?

    I haven't spent a minute aboard the sb-95. I would, as it looks great, but it's not my cup o'tea.
    Last edited by bpnic; 12-13-2011 at 07:45 PM.
    I'd hit it, but I bruise like a peach.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nybike1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,882
    Quote Originally Posted by bpnic View Post
    I tried to ride it like an HD too; with it's lopes link and CrossLine wheels, flex actually wasn't terribly noticeable.
    It handled the occasional 10' double or 8' drop without to much fuss, right NYB'71?
    I still can't believe what you put that poor Mojo through!

    Now that you have a real bike, you should come out to Plattekill again. There are some new race tracks from this Fall that are just rough, steep, and stellar. You can really put that SB-66 through its paces. Can't wait until the lifts start spinning again in the Spring, even though the last day of riding at the mountain this year was December 4 (and conditions the last three weekends were unbelievably good).

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bpnic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,388
    Quote Originally Posted by nybike1971 View Post
    I still can't believe what you put that poor Mojo through!

    Now that you have a real bike, you should come out to Plattekill again. There are some new race tracks from this Fall that are just rough, steep, and stellar. You can really put that SB-66 through its paces. Can't wait until the lifts start spinning again in the Spring, even though the last day of riding at the mountain this year was December 4 (and conditions the last three weekends were unbelievably good).

    If you promise to leave the 303 at home this time and shuttle the Knolly instead, I'll go.
    I can't spend a another day picking your kicked up stones( actually, shale) and dirt from my full face.

    Let's hit Highland this Spring too, ehh?
    Last edited by bpnic; 12-14-2011 at 10:39 PM.
    I'd hit it, but I bruise like a peach.

  37. #37
    30-ton War Machine
    Reputation: edgerat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    794
    Boo Santa Cruz, never will I buy one of your products now. Too bad, the Tallboy sure sounded like the bike for me.

  38. #38
    Ka-coo-ka-cha!
    Reputation: snigs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    541
    Quote Originally Posted by edgerat View Post
    Boo Santa Cruz, never will I buy one of your products now. Too bad, the Tallboy sure sounded like the bike for me.
    Now you'll just have to get a SB-95
    Get a bicycle. You will not regret it, if you live. ~Mark Twain, "Taming the Bicycle"

  39. #39
    30-ton War Machine
    Reputation: edgerat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    794
    As long as it isnt SC i am open to anything.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    4,804
    Why is everyone so against companies defending their IP? This is business pure and simple. I have no idea whether their suit has merit, but DW pointed it out as soon as it was released. BTW I have never owned an SC product and have no allegiance to them.

  41. #41
    30-ton War Machine
    Reputation: edgerat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    794
    What I abhor is litigous companies. Yes, they have a right to defend their patents and to be successful. I don't know enough about the two technologies to really have a valid argument, I just hate litigous people.

  42. #42
    I wasn't Kung Fu fighting
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    152
    No one likes litigious people, but it was litigious people that ended child labor, sweat shops, carcinogens in the work place, etc.

    I hate lawyers as much as everyone else, until my toaster oven blows up and burns my house down... the company denies any culpability. Then my lawyer is my best friend, because he is the person who will help my family have a place to live.

    If a company makes a large investment in R&D and testing and product development only to have their design stolen, should they sit idly by while the other company prospers on the shoulders of their work? Don't forget the enormous investment in the VPP design SC made when they resurrected it.

    I suspect the outrage here is due to the fact that SC is suing a similar company. If they were suing a large Chinese mass producer, I doubt anyone would be upset. They have the right to defend their IP regardless of who stole it.

    I'm not an engineer, so I have no idea if Yeti stole the design or not. I like both companies. I own a SC and the only reason I don't own a Yeti is that they've never fit me well... but several friends who have happily been riding them for years.

    I'll let the engineers, lawyers and judge decide if this case has merit, and refrain from making short sited and myopic claims about the ills of all litigation.
    Everyone has the right to be stupid, but you are abusing the priveledge.

  43. #43
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,650
    Yeti had a former SC engineer on their team, I think. Yeti markets Switch as a "dual-link" done differently. It is done differently because of that switch. The lower link swings back with the upper link swinging forward, which is similar to VPP's counter rotating links, but the Switch has its lower link swing forward again.

    I wonder if the other chainstay pivots infringe on Specialized patent or are licensed from Specialized but given a different name, like Rocky Mountain's XC design. Or how about Orbea's concentric pivot at the axle?

  44. #44
    ~Disc~Golf~
    Reputation: highdelll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    16,491
    Just get a 29er - it rolls over stuff better - and whatnot -
    Honestly... ahh I give up

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vespasianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,640
    Quote Originally Posted by bpnic View Post
    I've also spent time on first generation I-drives, which I think are incredibly underrated platforms. Some saddle time on both Horst link and single pivot bikes too.

    As someone who has spent significant time on HL, vpp, single pivot, and dw linked bikes, I agree with this statement 100%. Busby was and is a genius. He was talking about "suspension squat" and ways to counteract it in 1998-2000. Guy was way ahead of his time and realized that the suspension systems that worked with 2" of travel would not be the same systems that worked with 4+" of travel.
    Last edited by Vespasianus; 12-18-2011 at 08:18 AM.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    15
    Just curious but suppose SC wins the lawsuit what negative affects would it have on future replacement parts/warranty? Would hate to get one and then be up the creek for future needs

  47. #47
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Lonnie D View Post
    Just curious but suppose SC wins the lawsuit what negative affects would it have on future replacement parts/warranty? Would hate to get one and then be up the creek for future needs
    Prices will likely go up by a lot, due to paying royalties/licensing fees and they'd need to recoup the cost of their defense in the case somehow as well. I doubt they'd drop the platform, after investing so much into it. SC's prices have already gone up, while Yeti's been making some of their stuff more affordable.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,420
    You'd hardly have to give an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of welding rigs to come up with bike suspension.

    Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bpnic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,388
    Quote Originally Posted by Lonnie D View Post
    Just curious but suppose SC wins the lawsuit what negative affects would it have on future replacement parts/warranty? Would hate to get one and then be up the creek for future needs

    We'll pay slightly more and we'd see this on the chainstay....
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Santa Cruz sues Yeti!!-vpp.jpg  

    I'd hit it, but I bruise like a peach.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,067
    Quote Originally Posted by Salespunk View Post
    Why is everyone so against companies defending their IP? This is business pure and simple. I have no idea whether their suit has merit, but DW pointed it out as soon as it was released. BTW I have never owned an SC product and have no allegiance to them.
    Agreed. It must be close if SCB has filed suit, no company would go through the motion just to be d!cks.

  51. #51
    Cut Casing Whisperer
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,412
    Quote Originally Posted by GSJ1973 View Post
    no company would go through the motion just to be d!cks.
    My understanding is to protect their IP, they are compelled to establish a pattern of defense.. for when they really need it. Showing a history of defense strengthens the defense in the future.

    Companies don't get to pick and choose, who to sue and who not to sue. They have to pursue everyone equally they identify as close whether they want to or not.

    So it is possible that Santa Cruz does not want to sue Yeti, but to protect their IP from others they have to create the record.

    Like everything else in this thread, this is pure speculation.

    What we do know, is that we don't know what really goes on behind the scenes.

    P

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    4,804
    This is already one of the most expensive frames on the market because of the licensing agreement with Switch. If SC were to win they could ask for royalty payments or they in theory could end up owning Yeti.

    A similar situation happened between Mattel and the maker of Bratz dolls. The guy who started Bratz was a designer for Barbi at Mattel prior to bringing Bratz to the market. Turned out that he worked on the designs while at Mattel and they had the backup tapes to prove it. I watched the whole thing go down since I work a data storage company. Mattel pulled a $4M storage system off the floor and locked it down several years before the trial. Bratz tried to argue that the lawsuit only applied to Gen 1 of the dolls. Judge ruled against them and actually awarded Mattel all IP related to Bratz including trademarks, designs etc.

    My point in relating this story is that you never know what is going on behind the scenes. It could be totally unfounded or it could be that it actually does infringe on their patents.

  53. #53
    ~Disc~Golf~
    Reputation: highdelll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    16,491
    Quote Originally Posted by GSJ1973 View Post
    Agreed. It must be close if SCB has filed suit, no company would go through the motion just to be d!cks.
    Nope, never
    Lawsuit Happy Specialized At It Again
    Specialized on the lawsuit warhunt
    forums.mtbr.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=8842823
    Honestly... ahh I give up

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    212

    Salespunk Bratz won in the end! Read

    Barbie vs. Bratz the Sequel - and Bratz Wins!
    04/22/2011
    0 Comments

    posted by Jane Chuang
    In 2004, Mattel (the maker of Barbie dolls) sued MGA (the maker of Bratz dolls) for copyright infringement on the basis that the Bratz dolls had been created by former Mattel employee Carter Bryant and the rights were assigned to Mattel through an employment agreement. Bryant had pitched the Bratz dolls to MGA while still employed at Mattel and presented his preliminary sketches, a crude sculpt made out of leftover Barbie and Ken doll parts and the names "Bratz" and "Jade".

    In 2008, the case went to trial and the jury found that MGA was liable for copyright infringement and awarded Mattel $100 million of the $1 billion that it had requested. The judge then added on a hefty injunction, ordering that all the Bratz trademarks be held in trust for Mattel, and that MGA be prohibited from making or marketing just about all Bratz dolls and products.

    Last summer, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in an opinion written by Judge Kosinski, threw out the jury verdict and vacated the injunction. The Ninth Circuit found that the district court had incorrectly instructed the jury that the employment agreement assigned Bryant's works to Mattel. The case was then sent back for another trial to determine whether the agreement assigned the right to the sketches and sculpt to Mattel, and whether the Bratz sculpts were substantially similar to Bryant's preliminary sketches and sculpt.

    The new jury verdict came in yesterday. This time, the jury found that Mattel did not own the rights to the Bratz dolls. Rather, it found that Mattel stole MGA's trade secrets through "a campaign of corporate espionage" and awarded $88.4 million in damages. The jury also awarded Mattel $10,000 in damages after finding that MGA intentionally interfered with the contract between Mattel and Bryant.

    Sometimes, it pays to have current knowledge.

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    4,804
    Thanks for the update. I had not seen this.

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    71
    Awesome! Hopes for Yeti!

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gticlay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6,634
    I like both companies. Yeti feels they aren't infringing, Santa Cruz does. DW mentioned his opinion a while back which brings the whole thing even more into the 'lawyer zone'. While I don't support lawsuits like Apple brings against their competitors that are simply meant to harass, I think this is probably reasonable case for Santa Cruz to bring forward. If they are infringing, all Yeti has to do is pay Santa Cruz to use VPP. If not, well, Yeti will move forward.
    "It looks flexy"

  58. #58
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,650
    I don't think SC has a chance. The Yeti's link is an innovation that's not a copy, simple as that.

    VPP = counter rotating dual short link.
    Switch = rotates both counter and in the same direction of the other link.

    Switch's backward swing and forward swing of the upper link actually rotate the same direction at the beginning of the stroke, clockwise, despite seeming to appear counter or opposed to each other like the VPP. It's more like the other dual link systems in this case. In the smaller half of the travel, the switch rotates counterclockwise, while the upper link still goes clockwise, but does so for a different reason than VPP.

    They could argue axle path, maybe both being sort of S shaped, but I'm not exactly sure about the axle path of the Yeti to even give my opinion on it.

    I don't know what to think of SC for opening this case. I wonder if it shows how little the management of SC knows about their own suspension system. I don't know that much about them either, but know that these details show Yeti is in the clear. It's more like to give more publicity to both, but more like to show how much better Yeti's design is. I guess SC is thinking the Yeti design is a threat that will take a share of the market away from them and wanting to do something about it.

    Yeti stood by the single pivot for a while, as it's a solid and simple design, but this dual link design really looks like the engineering guys went above and beyond to make the extra complexity (and extra weight) to be more than worthy to pursue it this aggressively, seemingly fast tracking production once design details have been finalized. This is designing done right, IMO. Proud to have Americans thinking up such things, in a country that is seemingly getting more and more disconnected with the skilled trades.

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gticlay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6,634
    Let's talk about shock rate. I think that's what SC has been discussing the most lately... esp with APP but also VPP
    "It looks flexy"

  60. #60
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,650
    ^

    First Ride: Yeti SB-66, The Super Bike - Features - Vital MTB
    Linkage Design: Yeti SB-66 2012

    Here's the engineer who worked at SC and pioneered VPP, who also played a notable role in developing Switch (and other notable suspension systems).
    Sotto Group

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,934
    Quote Originally Posted by Varaxis View Post
    I don't think SC has a chance. The Yeti's link is an innovation that's not a copy, simple as that.

    VPP = counter rotating dual short link.
    Switch = rotates both counter and in the same direction of the other link.

    Switch's backward swing and forward swing of the upper link actually rotate the same direction at the beginning of the stroke, clockwise, despite seeming to appear counter or opposed to each other like the VPP. It's more like the other dual link systems in this case. In the smaller half of the travel, the switch rotates counterclockwise, while the upper link still goes clockwise, but does so for a different reason than VPP.

    They could argue axle path, maybe both being sort of S shaped, but I'm not exactly sure about the axle path of the Yeti to even give my opinion on it.

    I don't know what to think of SC for opening this case. I wonder if it shows how little the management of SC knows about their own suspension system. I don't know that much about them either, but know that these details show Yeti is in the clear. It's more like to give more publicity to both, but more like to show how much better Yeti's design is. I guess SC is thinking the Yeti design is a threat that will take a share of the market away from them and wanting to do something about it.

    Yeti stood by the single pivot for a while, as it's a solid and simple design, but this dual link design really looks like the engineering guys went above and beyond to make the extra complexity (and extra weight) to be more than worthy to pursue it this aggressively, seemingly fast tracking production once design details have been finalized. This is designing done right, IMO. Proud to have Americans thinking up such things, in a country that is seemingly getting more and more disconnected with the skilled trades.
    Couldn't agree more. The bike I had before the SB66 for a couple of years was a lot more VPP-like in it's design and ride (VF4b pivot) than that of the SB for sure. I have a feeling the pending suit is more due to potential threat as well. Be interesting if they would even bothered if the Switch designer was't a SC designer previously.

    What gives SC, just stick with your early pivot wearing, flexy dual link design .
    Ride On!

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dvo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    753
    Quote Originally Posted by Varaxis View Post
    Here's the engineer who worked at SC and pioneered VPP, who also played a notable role in developing Switch (and other notable suspension systems).
    Sotto Group
    Did he work for Outland?

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation: erol/frost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    490
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.P View Post
    My understanding is to protect their IP, they are compelled to establish a pattern of defense.. for when they really need it. Showing a history of defense strengthens the defense in the future.

    Companies don't get to pick and choose, who to sue and who not to sue. They have to pursue everyone equally they identify as close whether they want to or not.
    This is the MonsterCable modus operandi
    WTB: Ritchey Plexus
    DiNotte 200 lights

    automobiliana.blogspot.se

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,369
    Quote Originally Posted by edgerat View Post
    Boo Santa Cruz, never will I buy one of your products now. Too bad, the Tallboy sure sounded like the bike for me.
    Are you equipped to determine whether or not Yeti is infringing? If not, you are truly an idiot if you wouldn't buy the product of a company that sued another company for patent infringement.

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gticlay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6,634
    Quote Originally Posted by hillharman View Post
    Are you equipped to determine whether or not Yeti is infringing? If not, you are truly an idiot if you wouldn't buy the product of a company that sued another company for patent infringement.
    Especially if Yeti were to lose, but even if Yeti were to prevail there is nothing wrong with asking for a legal decision on an important to the manufacturer topic like this.
    "It looks flexy"

  66. #66
    Big Hittin'
    Reputation: nokfir2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    478
    yawn, these sueing threads are sooo boring.

    nuthing ever happens.....
    29er's are Goofy

  67. #67
    Ride da mOOn Moderator
    Reputation: NEPMTBA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    8,226

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by John P. View Post
    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
    I was just at the slaughter house, pigs were dying to get out!

    A word from the Bacon suppliers...
    ...F88k BEEF!

  68. #68
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,764
    Quote Originally Posted by John P. View Post
    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
    Considering that EVERY horst-link 4-bar with a top link that pivots from the toptube to a shock also along the top tube basically employs counter rotating links (the chainstay, while long is the bottom linkage) and are all virtual pivot bikes by their very nature, then Santa Cruz should have been suing companies like Lapierre and Fuji and others for years now.
    I don't post to generate business for myself or make like I'm better than sliced bread

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeEight View Post
    Considering that EVERY horst-link 4-bar with a top link that pivots from the toptube to a shock also along the top tube basically employs counter rotating links (the chainstay, while long is the bottom linkage) and are all virtual pivot bikes by their very nature, then Santa Cruz should have been suing companies like Lapierre and Fuji and others for years now.
    Someone correct me if Im wrong, but Lapierre cannot sell in USA due to suspension patent.

  70. #70
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikerado View Post
    Someone correct me if Im wrong, but Lapierre cannot sell in USA due to suspension patent.
    To legally sell in the US, they would need to pay Specialized to license the 4-bar Horst link design. Alternatively, they could alter their design in order to sell it, if they want to avoid paying the licensing fee. For example, Scott's US bound models don't have the Horst 4-bar susp, yet the same models have the 4-bar in Europe.

  71. #71
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,764
    I was corrected on the Scott recently (honestly I just don't look at the brand's catalog hardly ever) and apparently they dropped the horst-links on all models for the time being at least. Maybe they saw it as simpler to do that for the few remaining years the patent runs and then when it expires, redesign all their FS models at the same time to have horst-links again. Most brands do frame design revisions every four or five years anyway. The HL patent runs out sometime in 2014 so pretty much everybody who wishes to market in the USA but currently does not will be switching away from seatstay dropout pivots that uses them currently at that time.

    As to Lapierre themselves, they do sell some models to the USA but I'm not sure if that includes the HL using models or not. If it does, they're either paying a royalty or specialized's dirty little secret of patent fraud got around thru the industry and they've stopped bothering to issue cease and desist letters to avoid the patent office looking at them too closely (which would happen in a court case before a judge).
    I don't post to generate business for myself or make like I'm better than sliced bread

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chas_martel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,476
    Quote Originally Posted by KrisRayner View Post
    ............... when there's so many other suspension designs that SEEM similar.

    Seem's???

    There is more to infringement of intellectual property than "seeming" to be the same.

    Question for everyone herein: Why are so many MTB people opposed to intellectual property? Is it that so many in the community are socialist at heart? Jealous? I just don't get it.

    PS: I own a DW_Link and VPP bike. I was going to buy an SB66 but will wait and see what happens on this point-don't want to subsidize cheaters.
    Nobody cares...........

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by chas_martel View Post
    Question for everyone herein: Why are so many MTB people opposed to intellectual property? Is it that so many in the community are socialist at heart? Jealous? I just don't get it.
    Many if not most modern libertarians reject IP as invalid. It has nothing to do with socialism, and everything to do with infringing on real property rights. This is the wrong forum for this stuff, so I’ll just post a couple of links and return to lurking. A pretty good explanation of IP and arguments for and against it can be found here. If you’re really interested, you can buy or download Kinsella’s book, Against Intellectual Monopoly.

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chas_martel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,476
    Quote Originally Posted by belljeffw View Post
    If you’re really interested,
    Actually, I am not that interested, just wanted the opinionated version. I've heard the long version and disagree totally. Besides, I've got heavy investments in protected IP so I am not going to change my mind.

    I don't see how will you get people to invest time and money when they know their competitors can just wait and copy product? Where is the incentive to risk capital and time in creating innovations without protection?

    Also, Libertarians? Ha! The is enough to convenience me of the opposite of whatever it is they propose. Poor Libertarians just don't have a clue about the realities of the real actual world.
    Nobody cares...........

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chas_martel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,476
    Quote Originally Posted by daves4mtb View Post
    Really one doesn't know the full merits without actually being involved in the lawsuit.

    This has a bad feel to it. Bad in the sense that we as mountain bikers want good products licensed and available. We don't want big companies shutting down smaller ones and don't want to have one or two companies with all the latest technology.

    I like both companies' bikes, btw.
    I agree about needing to know the merits, my point is that many in our community don't seem to want to try and understand the merits. One mention of patents and WHAM, the big company is a ****** and the littler company is Davy.

    You just did the same thing, you assume (at least from my perspective) that one company is large and evil. What is wrong with a small company being restrained or shut-down because of their wrong actions? Size has nothing to do with it. Just like recored labels are evil yet kids swapping ripped tunes is OK. The reality is that misappropriation of IP is theft. Plain and simple.

    I'm curious, is the vigor with which you defend your clients determined by their size?
    Nobody cares...........

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,067
    Quote Originally Posted by chas_martel View Post
    I agree about needing to know the merits, my point is that many in our community don't seem to want to try and understand the merits. One mention of patents and WHAM, the big company is a ****** and the littler company is Davy.

    You just did the same thing, you assume (at least from my perspective) that one company is large and evil. What is wrong with a small company being restrained or shut-down because of their wrong actions? Size has nothing to do with it. Just like recored labels are evil yet kids swapping ripped tunes is OK. The reality is that misappropriation of IP is theft. Plain and simple.

    I'm curious, is the vigor with which you defend your clients determined by their size?
    And to further - which company is bigger? Yeti has been around longer and has a pretty huge race budget. But so does Santa Cruz.

  77. #77
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,650
    The VPP patents are really specific, relatively speaking, and even more recent VPP designs have evolved beyond the initial patents' designs. Counter rotating dual short links and a S shaped axle path are the main points of it.

    Anyways, it's up to the interpretation from the jury. Court date shows as 3/8/2012. How Yeti and Sotto Group spins their story and how SC Bikes spins their's is what matters. We're just speculating.

    Here's a nice write up on the VPP concept (worth a read--if you want to skim, at least start halfway down when they speak of Santa Cruz/Intense's version of VPP):
    Chapter 4

    There's a series of 4 patents for VPP, but here's one of them (not really interesting unless you're a lawyer type that wants to read the exact wording):
    Patent US6206397 - Bicycle wheel travel path for selectively applying chainstay lengthening ... - Google Patents

    Here's something new that looks like the Switch (or vice versa, as this design was introduced first):
    B’Twin Rockrider 9.1 Review - BikeRadar
    Last edited by Varaxis; 02-11-2012 at 09:54 PM.

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    71
    IP isn't applicable in this case IMO since it's not dealing with immaterial rights.

    Santa Cruz may have the IP of "The Most Awesome & Perfect Trail bike" and thus stop anyone to build that bike by taking that company to court. Easier to cash in on someones success than to build it yourself.

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    31
    David Earle and Luke Beale from Soto are ex-Santa Cruz engineers that came up with the idea(sb-66) and a sold it to yeti. Obviously they understood the benefits of vpp suspension and designed a new eccentric system to try to avoid ip conflicts and improve upon old system.

    Santa Cruz: ex-employees created a similar system by copying our ic migration and wheel path rates concept of counter rotating links.
    Yeti's response: we use an eccentric link and therefore there are no counter rotating links and create a similar but not the same ic migration and wheel path.

    I kinda lean towards SC a little more than Yeti. Seems there might be a compromise between the two. Like sharing a new patent or cross licensing.
    Last edited by erik2k10; 02-17-2012 at 03:36 PM.

  80. #80
    Johnny Dependable
    Reputation: BigBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    233
    This makes me very happy to have recently swapped out my Santa Cruz Butcher for a Yeti 7. Like SC isn't making enough money? Bastards. No more scruz for me.

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gticlay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6,634
    Quote Originally Posted by BigBill View Post
    This makes me very happy to have recently swapped out my Santa Cruz Butcher for a Yeti 7. Like SC isn't making enough money? Bastards. No more scruz for me.
    Why, if Yeti loses, they would have been stealing. If they win, cool If not, well
    "It looks flexy"

  82. #82
    Johnny Dependable
    Reputation: BigBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    233
    Quote Originally Posted by gticlay View Post
    Why, if Yeti loses, they would have been stealing. If they win, cool If not, well
    Because this is the ******** that makes America suck. Stupid, greedy corporations and the stupid greedy lawyers that represent them. Sue happy, greedy American suck wads. Everyone pays more for frames because Scruz wants to corner the market on a good design? Patenting laws are out of control. If you make a good product you shouldn't have to worry about your competition. Plus this will never make it to court. Scruz just wants a hand out and they'll get it because settlements are always less expensive than defending the case in court. Riders/customers will pick up the tab.

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    53
    Damn SC, this has made my new bike decision easy. No nomad for me, SB-66c hurry up and get here.

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    71
    Any news?

  85. #85
    Peddling Extraordinaire
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    31
    my guess is it will get settled outside court, by sharing technology.

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    71
    Hopefully... Worst case will be Yeti forced to destroy all SB frames and pay damages to $C. One negative thing with a settle is that we'll never know if $C really had a case here or if their lawyers just wanted to stifle the competition...

  87. #87
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,650
    It's not only a matter of business, but a matter of principle as well. Sometimes the principle is more important or meaningful than the business related (profits) outcome. Having someone who worked for Santa Cruz sell a refined design to the competition... Santa Cruz invested a lot in their design and wants to protect their licensing partners (Intense and whoever else) as well.

    Settlements out of court can be like admitting fault. It's like the case of Chevron's safety fine of $350, where a worker died after falling into a hole, being boiled to death, due to the steam jet injection process loosening the oil, also causing pockets of loose Earth. If Chevron thought it was cheap just to pay the $350, that would be like admitting guilt (note that they were fined $22 billion not too long ago, to show how insignificant this amount is). That can open the door for more people to take advantage of their stance. Instead, they defended it on principle, saying they outlined safety precautions orally. Their stance of defense might cost much much more than the $350 fee, but it's about principles.

    Edit:

    Looked it up and it seems the case was dismissed by both parties, possibly settling things out of court.

    Document 38 :: Santa Cruz Bicycles, Inc. v. Yeti Cycles Inc. et al :: 3:2011cv04324 :: California Northern District Court :: US Federal District Courts Cases :: Justia

    Yeti was always confident in their case. I suppose Santa Cruz saw that there wasn't any net benefit in pursuing their case. SC didn't seem to spend much on legal... heck, even the legal doc their lawyer made up had typos in it. Not sure who came out on top, but Santa Cruz bikes still are selling well and Yeti bikes have been steadily increasing in sales even before the intro of SB bikes.

    Amusing to see the Tallboy LT and LTc come out, to one-up the SB-95. Between the Blur LT/LTC and Nomad C, SC bikes are more popular than the SB-66. From the business point of view, Santa Cruz seems to be winning. Being a Yeti fan just keeps me waiting for Yeti to come out with something that erases any temptation I have in wanting to own bikes from other brands.
    Last edited by Varaxis; 04-17-2012 at 08:49 AM.

  88. #88
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,650
    (edit: should've just edited it onto the post above).
    Last edited by Varaxis; 04-17-2012 at 08:39 AM.

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    71
    Thanks for the info Varaxis.

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation: castnblastut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    232

    One Up for Yeti

    My .02$, I'll be dropping 4-5K on a new 29er this year (my 1st 29r) and the Tallboy LT and SB 95 are on the short-list. SC's Specialized-like attitude has definately affected the Tallboy's position on my 29er list.

    I can't control much but I can control where my own $ goes

  91. #91
    Chilling out
    Reputation: bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Varaxis View Post
    Amusing to see the Tallboy LT and LTc come out, to one-up the SB-95.
    I may already be a fan-boi for the Tribe (safe in this forum I guess) but I looked over the posted geometry numbers for the Tallboy LT and SB95, and the most significant differences are the head-tube- and seat-tube-angles, with the SB being slacker (2d slacker HTA, 1.5d slacker STA). The rest of the numbers were fairly similar, comparing values for "140" for on the SB.

    Sooo, I'm guessing (because I can't ride them myself to compare) that they are going to ride significantly differently - between those angles, the rear suspension action, and the physical build quality/burliness/whatever of the frames.

    It'd be great to have someone do a serious and impartial comparison.

  92. #92
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,650
    ^ Same here. The Tallboy LTc would be tempting for its weight alone and the prospect of handling like a TRc or Blur LT, but I haven't test ridden it to know for sure. On the other hand, I've tested the SB-95 enough to know what it's capable of and like feel the way Yetis fit and ride suit me best.

    Wonder why this Yeti employee has such a big grin on his face, while setting up a bike to be taken out on a demo, knowing it's going to be abused pretty hard.



    https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-t...SB-95demo2.jpg (sending it off a rock at a crazy speed)

    https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-_.../SB-95demo.jpg (3-4' drop to flat)

    https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-B...igFingRock.jpg (rolling down a crazy tall and steep rock - another perspective - and another)

    Riding buddy (200+ lbs) had his rear tube explode on his demo, casing it on a big table.

    The SB-95 changed a lot of people's impressions about 29ers. Glad it's not going away.

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dvo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    753
    Whats with the crotch grab in the pic.

  94. #94
    Chilling out
    Reputation: bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,766
    Varaxis, that's some fun shots - me wanna abuse my bike that way! Maybe once I get one I'll take it to Mountain Creek Bike Park for some play time.

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    372
    looks like Decathlon is up next, when the switch bikes came out many noted their similarities...
    Decathlon S A v. Yeti Cycling LLC et. al. patent lawsuit
    here we go again

  96. #96
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,650
    Decathlon actually stands a good chance. Definitely some clear similarities at a basic visual standpoint. A technically ignorant jury or judge could rule in Decathlon's favor by looks and basic principles alone.

    When you actually compare suspension characteristics such as anti-squat, leverage ratio curve, pedal kickback, chain growth, they are really different. It's not easy to get all the well tuned suspension characteristics that Yeti got through their system, especially the anti-squat characteristics.

    If Decathlon gets anything out of this, I consider them lucky. Put the bikes side by side and ride them and anyone can tell that they're not the same. You can say that Decathlon has nothing, if you based the verdict on that alone. Too bad the justice system doesn't work that way.

  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    122
    Interesting comparison between the Yeti and Decathlon here (near the bottom of the link).

    linkagedesign.blogspot.com.es&#47;search&#47;label &#47;Yeti - Translator

  98. #98
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    4,650
    California court district, plus trial by jury... sounds like they are aiming for a lotto jackpot, asking for 3x the assessed value of damages, royalties, and asking for Yeti to offer up SB models to them for destruction. Decathlon's probably not putting much money into the case and Yeti is likely gonna spill out a lot of its research knowledge, which Decathlon can use to improve their design.

    Gonna be a gain for Decathlon in the end, no matter what the verdict.



    Yeti doesn't push the swinglink from the very top. The swinglink also is set up in a manner so that the instant center pretty much stays in the same area through the entire stroke, near the lower eccentric pivot.

  99. #99
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,122
    So... where does this Decathlon S A v. Yeti Cycling LLC et. al. patent lawsuit proceed.

    I am concerned that a jury would be too taken by the visual similarities.

    What I generally hate is patent squatters. Friiging Decathlon does not even sell anything in US.

    Oh..well. My favorite suspension is FSR anyway. Simple, and works well. Maybe yeti will pickup that, if they are not sued out of business.

  100. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation: daisycutter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,470
    Any update on these lawsuits?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. santa cruz or Yeti
    By samurai75 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-19-2011, 03:14 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, 08:05 AM
  4. Yeti vs. Santa Cruz
    By 25lbs&counting in forum Bike and Frame discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-03-2009, 01:56 PM
  5. Yeti DH Vs. Santa Cruz DH?
    By cocopuffberman in forum Yeti
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-12-2004, 09:20 AM

Members who have read this thread: 4

Posting Permissions

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