Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Ugliness can be patented
Quote | Reply
  

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/...ims-dutch-bike-brand


Ku claiming British Cycling / Hope bike front end breaks their patent and is a copy.

This is interesting in that onnother threads about designs being ripped off, the mantra has been 'can't patent a bike'.
However this does. Or at least the fork (something that has been in use for as long as there have been bikes !).

That funky and stunning bike maker Jones has been making a wide fork that attaches to the steerer above and below the steerer tube for years and years.

Strange how the Hope bike has been in the public eye for more than a year, yet they wait until the track racing starts to say something đŸ¤”

Next steps ?
Do folks think BC will seek to get the patent cancelled ? Or are Ku just playing the game to get some hush money ?

(I saw a Ku in the flesh a week ago. It had a brash Kona paint job that distracted from it's base ugliness. But it was still no oil painting !)
Quote Reply
Re: Ugliness can be patented [BobAjobb] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Having read the article this isn't about a patent infringement its about intellectual property theft. Ku clearly believes their 'idea was stolen' in a personal way. Given I can remember reading articles where Steve Hed talked about this same idea well over a decade ago that sounds like a crop of BS to me.

Hed looked into aerodynamic interference between wheels and fork surrounding the pros and cons of Tri-spokes. His conclusion at the time was that in theory wider is better for the fork but within UCI constraints and manufacturing technology at the time you couldn't go wide enough to get a real advantage. This was about the same time Hed was playing around with tire width/wheel width ratios that were then pretty much ignored for the next decade before coming of age. I wouldn't be surprised if there is actually an old ST article Dan wrote covering the topic which even delved into the issues of optimum fork width and the front brakes with the conclusion that on TT bikes the requirement for front brake was a limiting factor in getting the optimum width. I could be mis-remembering where I read that article but it was definitely based on work done by Hed and definitely not recent.

The trick with the Hope and Ku bikes is in the detail of how they executed the super wide forks. Ku is going to need to show direct patent infringement on the design and I doubt they have a case for that. Hope will have reams of information to show the idea Ku is claiming was stolen has been around for many years but that the UCI rules had previously banned the design. The UCI rule changes prompted the new design not any super secret information they stole from Ku.
Quote Reply
Re: Ugliness can be patented [scott8888] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
My understanding (which could be wrong !) is that the protection of 'IP' is via a patent.

Otherwise it's not enforceable (like near-copycat clothing in the fashion world - nobody can patent trousers with 2 legs and a wider bit for the waist, and as a result there are always likey-likey copies of 'designer' stuff - providing they don't sew a Prada label or what ever in as that would be counterfeit and break trade mark law) .


Back to the bikes... Specialized went to the wide forks idea (albeit not SO wide) on the latest Shiv about 2 years ago. Wonder where they sit with that (other than they have a lot more muscle than Hope).
Quote Reply
Re: Ugliness can be patented [BobAjobb] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Reminds me of something I saw a few years ago, where an artist asked people to draw a bike and he created them to spec

https://twistedsifter.com/...and-renders-results/





"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin
Last edited by: RandMart: Aug 3, 21 6:21
Quote Reply
Post deleted by tttiltheend [ In reply to ]
Re: Ugliness can be patented [BobAjobb] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I thought this was going to be about comments on the Simone Biles thread.
Quote Reply
Re: Ugliness can be patented [tttiltheend] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
tttiltheend wrote:
The Ku fork is nowhere near as wide, and appears to be engineered in a Rube Goldberg manner to build in some compliance on a fat bike without active suspension

Compliance?


Quote Reply
Re: Ugliness can be patented [rruff] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
My bad, I was looking at the ti bike and thinking they were the ones suing. Should have read the original post more carefully.
Quote Reply
Re: Ugliness can be patented [rruff] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
rruff wrote:
tttiltheend wrote:
The Ku fork is nowhere near as wide, and appears to be engineered in a Rube Goldberg manner to build in some compliance on a fat bike without active suspension


Compliance?

there is a patent WO 2018/065383 Al that covers the Ku bike and explains it is for aerodynamic benefit. There is also an application (not a granted patent) for ENGLISH INSTITUTE OF SPORT LIMITED and THE BRITISH CYCLING FEDERATION WO2021053352 - IMPROVEMENTS IN OR RELATING TO BICYCLES that talks specifically and only to the wide design. it was filed Sept 2020. there is info saying that the application does not meet the requirements of new and novel so I suspect it was or is denied. That said it is likely the Ku design takes precedent.

I think British Cycling may have a problem with the infringement.

Quote Reply
Re: Ugliness can be patented [tttiltheend] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
tttiltheend wrote:
My bad, I was looking at the ti bike and thinking they were the ones suing. Should have read the original post more carefully.

Ya, I don't understand why that Jones bike is posted... it has nothing to do with this topic.
Quote Reply
Re: Ugliness can be patented [BobAjobb] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Didn't the Lotus bike come out before the Ku bike? How would that violate their patent?

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.
Quote Reply
Re: Ugliness can be patented [Carl Spackler] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Carl Spackler wrote:
I thought this was going to be about comments on the Simone Biles thread.

I think maybe "copyrighted" or "trademarked" would be appropriate, as a means to protect/preserve Intellectual Property, but not "patented"

Although some remarks were "patently" cruel, false, misinformed, ridiculous, etc.

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin
Quote Reply
Re: Ugliness can be patented [rruff] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
rruff wrote:
tttiltheend wrote:
My bad, I was looking at the ti bike and thinking they were the ones suing. Should have read the original post more carefully.

Ya, I don't understand why that Jones bike is posted... it has nothing to do with this topic.

It's relevant at it illustrates a wide fork that also attaches above and below the head tube, a la Ku, that's been in production for a decade+.
Quote Reply
Re: Ugliness can be patented [BobAjobb] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BobAjobb wrote:
It's relevant at it illustrates a wide fork that also attaches above and below the head tube, a la Ku, that's been in production for a decade+.

It's only as wide as it needs to be for the tire, has nothing to do with aero, and it is ancient.




BTW, it is not designed for compliance at all, but rather strength and stiffness.
Quote Reply
Re: Ugliness can be patented [BobAjobb] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
There is so much prior art in this area that KU doesn't really have a leg to stand on.

FWIW, I have a (now expired) patent on narrow flange hub designs for aerodynamics. The wind tunnel testing we did (in concert with Profile) showed that the wheel on its own wasn't faster, but the reduction in interference drag with the fork is what made it a fast wheel. So this concept has been around for a long time.

Here's the UK team at the 2012 Olympics using a wide fork design


The NZ bike from Rio


ECMGN Therapy Silicon Valley:
Depression, Neurocognitive problems, Dementias (Testing and Evaluation), Trauma and PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)
Quote Reply