Patents in the bicycle industry

The wheels, they're still round, different sizes, but still round. Talk about the "old ages"...... I ponder this quite a bit, so much so I've gone mental and can't get this song outta my head....

the_wheels_on_the_bus.gif



:P
 
For years they have attempted to replace..."The Chain".
The challenge is that sometimes it's at it's most simplistic form.

Cable shifting is being challenged by electronic shifting. My thoughts are always leary of forced paradigm shifts for bicycle industry economics...
 
I had to explain to someone how Shimano's cup and cone hub bearings are not old obsolete tech, with them reasoning if it's so superior then why are DT Swiss hubs everywhere, which use sealed cartridge bearings (radial). Shimano has the patent on cup and cone and exclusivity on the design. Shimano hubs are actually everywhere on the road.

My pain with slotted chainring bolts rose up when I had to get extra due to mangling one up since it was seized up a bit, and see that people actually buy expensive slotted ones from the likes of Sugino. Was shopping for replacement bolts to handle the job without failing me again and was wondering why they were $20 from the likes of Wolf Tooth, or Torx from FSA, but found TruVativ with ones under $10.

I browsed a patent on hydraulic hose fittings that allow them to be separated without leaking or introducing a significant amount of air into the system, that isn't as bulky as Avid's connect-a-majig and apparently doesn't let in as much air, and looks like it could even be used for internal routing.

Shimano has patents on electronic everything, including a screw-based dropper post, electronically controlled damping (that isn't just an arm that flicks a lever, but actually controls valves and such directly). A lot of it's just concept, but i wonder if these ideas ever see production.

I like the chain for transmitting power, as it has extremely high tensile strength and its flexibility works well for derailleur-based shifting. Just weak links from mfg defects and user error with chain tools. Wouldn't be surprised to find most styles of quick links to be patented. There's this style of thinking out of the box that might lead to some interesting products (Ford City Bike, hubless sealed drivetrain).
 
DCOOjJm.jpg
F0Is1S2.png


Magura has a patent on 1-piece disc rotor design that includes a support "ring" that supports the bolt holes. Companies have resorted to making weaker rotors rather than pay the licensing/royalties, using a flimsier "finger" design, that also can put more stress on the hub's individual bolt holes.

Saw this pic on PB recently:

4v3bW6S.jpg


The racer says he was lucky he landed in the soft stuff. The the connection between the bolt and hub failed and led to this. Not too unlike the result of a chainring bolt failing and bending the ring, but a bit more violent...

With the fingered design, if 1 bolt were to fail, especially on a 8" rotor, the above is more likely to result than if it had Magura's ring design. Even American Classic states that for such rotors, they recommend adding their washer. Shimano has variations of washers too, that link bolt holes for 6 bolt setups.
 
Last edited:
What about embedding a GPS device inside expensive frames? Thief deterrent. Not sure how the signal can extend into or out of carbon or alum or other materials.

Also what about a frame material with lots of small holes in it to lighten it up?
 
Looks aero. ;)

Shimano has a recent patent on a chain quick link, but who knows if they'll make one as they don't put many of their patents into production. Other brands' quick links are patented, so I guess Shimano had to make it more novel/innovative (re: likely more expensive) to get around them. They patented all their chamfering on their chains, so they have that over the others...

Trek patented a "brake vibration damping system". Looks to be an adapter with a reservoir that goes between the caliper and the frame/fork. Spec also has a simpler version that's just a tuned mass damper.

Specialized has been cooking up more SWAT stuff, such as a molded plastic organizing rack for a tube + CO2 + CO2 inflator head + tire lever, and they seem to have evolved the rim strip (bead lock for mtb, reinforcement for road). There's also a possible return of the rear tri-mounted shock (with the brain integrated).

HIqjOXJ.jpg

b7vgbDq.jpg

gQtNJcU.jpg
 
Last edited:
Looks like Shimano's quick link made it to production:

http://www.pinkbike.com/news/shimano-tweaks-11-speed-offerings-2016.html

Didn't expect to see that design of their chainring. They had another design that was short-long, but it didn't show that the short tooth was also wide in the patent images.

ShimanoChainEvolution.jpg

- A minor evolution of the chain. According to the documentation, it is designed to better address the forces the chain sees from backlash, sharp tugs, forces from rear suspension, and addressing the inner tolerances of the rollers. I believe the asym elongated outer links help with front shifting.
 
Last edited:
Sorry Varaxis for the cross/simul post on this shimano release over in the m8000 thread.
I guess SRAMs 12 speed 10-50 will be the next big announcement. Seems like chains will need some help dealing with all that...
 
That's partially what got me thinking about chains and efficiency. I'm organizing all my data on it now. In short, I'm happier cogs are getting bigger. Hoping that 11 and 12t derailleur pulleys get bigger too. There's a significant amount of efficiency to be gained in traditional chain and derailleur drivetrains that have been lost by trends that cater to weight weenism. I think mtnbikej is onto something, considering he has something like a 32x22 gearing, with near-perfect chainline alignment, which is extremely efficient (guessing >98.5%) compared to 32x10t on a modern short chainstay 1x11 bike, which has efficiency of around 91%. Internal gear hubs and gearboxes approach that efficiency... can gain 93% efficiency by simply going from 10t to 12t--2% easily covers the difference between winners and midpack in competitions. Going with a bigger chainring increases efficiency too.

The question about better materials came up in this thread, and that's already been answered by Shimano and SRAM. They're offering steel clad aluminum. Either like their rotors, where aluminum is sandwiched between steel, or a plating. There's also other coatings to be utilized, like DLC, which KMC uses on their chain. The chain stretching is one of the main causes of wear--consider the cost of some of these high end cassettes and a chain like that makes more sense.

Speaking of IGH, I wonder what happened to designs like the Zerode bike. Was kind of interesting how they focused on suspension quality by minimizing unsprung weight and reducing the amount of momentum loss (hang-up) on square edge bumps with their high pivot.
 
Last edited:
Varaxis said:
That's partially what got me thinking about chains and efficiency. I'm organizing all my data on it now. In short, I'm happier cogs are getting bigger. Hoping that 11 and 12t derailleur pulleys get bigger too. There's a significant amount of efficiency to be gained in traditional chain and derailleur drivetrains that have been lost by trends that cater to weight weenism. I think mtnbikej is onto something, considering he has something like a 32x22 gearing, with near-perfect chainline alignment, which is extremely efficient compared to 32x10t on a modern short chainstay 1x11 bike, which has efficiency of around 91%. Internal gear hubs and gearboxes approach that efficiency...

The question about better materials came up in this thread, and that's already been answered by Shimano and SRAM. They're offering steel clad aluminum. Either like their rotors, where aluminum is sandwiched between steel, or a plating. There's also other coatings to be utilized, like DLC, which KMC uses on their chain. The chain stretching is one of the main causes of wear--consider the cost of some of these high end cassettes and a chain like that makes more sense.
Click to expand...

Just a small point... I think our resident single speed guru is running 32 x 21. The SS newbs on the board are stuck on 32 x 22. :whistling:
 
Varaxis said:
View attachment 12905View attachment 12906

Magura has a patent on 1-piece disc rotor design that includes a support "ring" that supports the bolt holes. Companies have resorted to making weaker rotors rather than pay the licensing/royalties, using a flimsier "finger" design, that also can put more stress on the hub's individual bolt holes.

Saw this pic on PB recently:

4v3bw6s-jpg.12904.jpg


The racer says he was lucky he landed in the soft stuff. The the connection between the bolt and hub failed and led to this. Not too unlike the result of a chainring bolt failing and bending the ring, but a bit more violent...

With the fingered design, if 1 bolt were to fail, especially on a 8" rotor, the above is more likely to result than if it had Magura's ring design. Even American Classic states that for such rotors, they recommend adding their washer. Shimano has variations of washers too, that link bolt holes for 6 bolt setups.
Click to expand...


Lucky it was not the front wheel. (the PB pic)
 
Varaxis said:
I've been lightly skirting this topic, only going in depth when wondering why certain features aren't more prevalent.

Dual hex head chainring bolts. Patented by TruVativ.

Anyone know of more? Is there something keeping the industry in the old ages?
Click to expand...
That patent wouldn't stand up if it was worth fighting, but it's easy enough to design around so why bother?

It's a hollow nut and bolt. With drive features.

You can patent anything these days.
 
evdog said:
Any idea when some of these patents are going to expire?
Click to expand...

20 years for utility patents (functional engineered inventions) like these, as long as they pay maintenance fees. 14 years for "design" (artistic, user interface/experience) patents.


SRAM's chainring tooth shaping is still top on the market by far, especially on XX1-Eagle; XX1 11 speed is still significantly better at chain retention and dealing with muck than most the competition, including SRAM's XO1 and lower end X-Sync chainrings (which lack the mud clearing features).

Suspension area is heating up, especially with Fox actively investing more on manufacturing more complex systems. I expect remote reservoirs to make an appearance within 5 years on a big scale, which allows frame makers to fit a smaller dimension shock, allowing more freedom with fitment, while allowing a shock makers to fit in all the features they want into the shock. Expect a # of revisions from Fox down the road on their current products, like their transfer post getting fixes to allow for better reliability (ex. improved pressure relief to handle large temperature change). They really are out-doing the competition--even if they merely copy, they are 1-upping them through superior manufacturing quality and integrating their latest tech.
 
tick said:
That patent wouldn't stand up if it was worth fighting, but it's easy enough to design around so why bother?

It's a hollow nut and bolt. With drive features.

You can patent anything these days.
Click to expand...

I'll list the current design arounds on the market:

- Eliminate the nut, bolting directly into threaded chainring or threaded spider. Much more viable to tap threads into 4 identical objects on a simple machine, than tap threads into an odd shaped object in 4 different precise locations on a super expensive machine.
- Use a nut that's shaped to integrates with the crankarm, perhaps like caps that clamp onto the other side of the spider. More expensive, adds weight, requires design to make it attractive looking.
- Torx-driven nut. Not common on multi-tools.
- Direct mount chainring with lock-ring. Must remove crank to change, lacks stiffness compared to chainrings connected to spider.

Frustration-free convenience is valuable. Should see the various inventions out there for allow for quick chainring changes. Impact of this small detail might seem hidden to those that seemingly just ride, but from a mfg perspective and someone who has to do regular maintenance work on others' bikes, this makes a diff in terms of simplifying processing, and saving time/money (and sanity?).

Anyways, the point was that I was wondering why it wasn't more common and why I had to deal with shitty slotted chainring bolts and the related tools, trying to properly torque things to minimize the risk of creaking and loosening over time. The existence of the patent explained things.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top