pro teams tend to do it that way. i always wonder about it, and the only thing i can come up with is that maybe there are fewer front flats, so less need for adjustment, and also the rider can reach down and make an adjustment if it gets knocked out of alignment during a race.

otherwise....*shrug*.

Going back and looking at the drawings posts previously, it seems that is for an entirely different brake design, and not the brakes pictured.

Whether that other (hydraulic?) design ever sees the light of day.....

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

When Giant did the first iteration of the Propel the used carbon arms on the V-brakes to save weight and performance suffered enormously as a result. They ended up switching to titanium arms in the second gen which produced fantastic performance. Sponsored teams ended up having their own alloy arms made which also had excellent performance. If Spesh opted to build the calipers all out of carbon I wonder if they will suffer the same fate. The front brake is clearly intended to be a fairing to fill the fork/ downtube gap - if the UCI throws a fit they say 'hey, it's just a brake, we needed to make it like that for xyz silly reason'. Are my eyes deceiving me or is that some kind of custom extra-long brake pad going on?

Remember, that is a patent drawing and isn't exactly how a potential hydraulic brake would necessary have to look in final production form. It is more the idea. Question of if they bring hydraulic is a good one and only time will tell.

new madone is looking like a much better bet than this,,, even the current venge is looking better

I understand that....but there is nothing unique about the brakes that are on the bike pictured above, certainly nothing that could be patented.

So the patent drawings are for something else....whether a new design of mechanical brakes (a cam system perhaps?) or a hydraulic system is open for interpretation.

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

A bit off topic... Those original Giant Propel Adv SL carbon brakes were horrific. I owned this bike for a year and although the bike was awesome the braking was easily the worst braking I have ever experienced. The problem I had at the time was Giant Canada wouldn't even acknowledge the poor braking on those model bikes.

OK, went back through the thread and looked up the patent application from which the drawings were pulled.

the patent is for a hydraulic system....now whether it is ever implemented on a Venge or any other bike is TBD.

https://www.google.com.tw/patents/US20140265222

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

I think the application was written to be used more as a defensive disclosure, but I don't know what prior art exists. I'm sure Specialized wouldn't have spent the money if there weren't a couple of novel aspects in the application, and there appears to be, in my view, patentable material in the application.

There are two potential reasons that immediately come to mind.

My (10 year old) Polar S720 speed sensor doesn't work on the chainstay. The aerial was directional, and would only work if it was mounted to something more-or-less vertical (or pointing to the S720?). It would work on the seatstay (slightly more vertical), but then it struggled with the distance. I don't know if current SRM suffers from this, but it might well be stuck in some mechanics mind that speed sensors work better on forks. SRM HR was Suunto, but I'm not sure about the speed sensor, so I can't confirm if it suffered like the Polar.

The second potential reason is that the pro teams regularly have to mount race specific transponders on the chainstays. Maybe they don't want to mess with that area.


That might very well happen. I regularly see triathletes ride 90% of the time on the bullhorns.

For road racing I'm kinda partial to normal brakes in normal locations. Sometimes you have to swap wheels quickly, and on multi-day events it's a benefit if your toolbag is smaller. The brakes also have to work much harder than in a TT. Maybe I should look for an old stock Venge or new S3.

I think you are mis-reading my post(s)......as it pertains to the drawings, yes, there appears to be some patenable ideas (especially as it pertains to the idea of hydraulics).

As far as the actual bike pictured above with the mini v-brake arms, there does not appear to be anything patentable in that application. Hence the reason I went back to look at the actual patent filing and confirmed that the application pertains to a hydraulic system.

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

Again, I'm not sure what's out there in terms of mini-v brake designs, etc., but the independent claim doesn't include any hydraulic limitations. Theoretically, the picture of the bike above, namely the proprietary brake design as is without a hydraulic system, could be covered under a patent, if granted.

Actually...reading the independent claim, I can't see how that application will EVER be granted. WAAAY too broad. It describes basically any brake that has pivots on the frame.

That's just my limited knowledge take on it, though...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Not exactly. It says that the "actuator" is closer to the brake pivot axis than the brake pads. On V brakes the actuator (the cable) is always further away, so that's kinda novel. From the pictures though, they're not following this patent. Not sure how this applies to traditional caliper brakes either.

Also this is just an application, it hasn't been granted yet. I bet there will be some changes.

Any guesses on how many watts this new Venge will save over the current Venge?

The more I think about it, they're basically patenting hydraulic rim brakes in general. Because you generally want more pad travel than you can realistically achieve with piston travel, you're always going to want it closer to your brake pivot than your pads. Doesn't matter what style of brake.

The new Venge and Madone are both interesting. Looking at the photos makes me wonder about the following;
1. Both frames look like they only support electronic shifting. Does this mark the beginning of the end of mechanical shifting?
2. The Madone looks like it might have the Domane elastomer seat tube collar. Is Trek going to focus on both aero and comfort with one bike or is this something to get Cancellara to ride/promote the bike?
3. Does anyone know which rider(s) are on the Venge? Cavendish was a big early promoter of the Venge, so I assume a lot of the design choices reflected his input. Given that the first Venge is a Tinkov team bike I am guessing maybe Sagan is providing feedback.

Actually...no. Look at the Magura rim brakes. The actuator is further from the pivot than the brake pad. You gain more leverage at the expense of travel. IIRC, the SRAM HRR brakes are the same ("actuator arm" longer than "brake arm")...so, good point on that...I didn't catch that.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Cancellara still uses mechanical. Even on the new Madone.

Yeah, I suppose you are right. In the description they specifically mention a ratio of piston travel to pad travel which would be difficult to get around but in the claims they only mention distance. Then you can get around it with a wedge design (TriRig/Magura/Shimano AX)

Okay, so as a patent attorney, I should probably start out by saying that my statements do not constitute legal advice and in no way establish a client-attorney relationship with anyone.

With that out of the way, I will say that I have limited knowledge about how the Magura or other hydraulic systems actually work in detail, but it looks the Omega X could be a problem (either to TriRig or to Specialized depending on when the Omega X was released).



I know the text is kind of small, but assuming that's where the wedged arm is applying the force to the pad, it would infringe on the currently-pending independent claim if it ever issued. And if this design was already out there before Specialized's priority date for this application, then Specialized's going to have to amend their claims if they want to get something patented. It's just a matter of how narrow you want to limit yourself if the TriRig system is deemed to be prior art. I think there are a number of different ways though that you could amend the claims with the current specification.

And.... nevermind.... I should have checked PAIR first, but the application was abandoned by Specialized. Didn't look at the Office Action, but I'm assuming the examiner came down hard with a number of references with a 102/103 rejection. I'll try and dig a little deeper to see what was cited against them later on when I have some free time. I'm hoping they at least got a design patent out of this.

anyone else notice how the downtube seems to taper from a knife edge near the head tube down to a wider kamn tail down near the BB junction?

This idea isn't new. I know the original S5 had it and I think other aero frames may have had it before as well. If I can recall correctly from fluid dynamics and FEA classes, this would basically delay separation of the boundary layer so as to mimic the lower portion of the downtube (i.e., near the BB) to have a greater width than the downtube portion near the headtube/fork. Also, when you install/carry a bottle, you're shielding the bottle better and providing greater laminar flow (I think)....

I think first bike to use that design is actually the Litespeed C1. I don't know if they even did any CDF work on that design or specific wind tunnel work in the development (they did test the final design though). It just seems logical to not taper the tube to a point if you are going to put a bottle there.