Lotus/Hope/British Cycling... stolen design?

[Velocipede]

Personally, I've thought this bike was fugly in so many ways. VS the original 108 and 110 or even the GT Superbike, this thing doesn't compare. Had no clue there was a previous design from 2016. It's interesting that British Cycling is gonna fight this. It looks so much like the Kú Cycle frameset.

Your thoughts?

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/t...1sQ1r3axGcaJls

[bigbill]

Wide forks aren't new. There was a manufacturer, winnwood or similar, that made a wide fork for aero frames back in the early 90s.

[bicycletricycle]

I have to work around parents a lot in my work. Stupid patents that won’t really hold up in court get awarded all the time. As described in the article investors want them and big companies use them to scare off competition. Not sure how solid of ground the patent in question is but I wouldn’t be surprised if it is thin.

Also, most people don’t understand the way patents work. They generally have a set of key claims. If you workaround one claim you are off the hook.

The idea of having a wide fork isn’t new (although these 2 bikes may represent the limit) or particularly genius IMHO. Sounds like the have done IP around the way the fork pivots which may be the actual strength of the patent.

Also, in the article they talk about the fork leg conditioning the air around the legs. This may be against UCI rules as it may count as a fairing for the rider.

Also, patents are silly and the whole idea of IP is archaic. Granting somebody a temporary monopoly punishes the consumer. If we got rid of them people/companies would still innovate. In my experience they are mostly used maliciously.

[unterhausen]

Under UCI rules, you can implement things that work like fairings as long as they don't violate the rules about dimensions. Obviously, these fork legs are not long enough to be considered fairings under the UCI rules. Another example of things that are legal is shaping a tube like a fairing and cutting off the back. The air will eddy behind the tube and act like a fairing.

It wouldn't surprise me if the UCI just said your fork can't be this wide.

[bicycletricycle]

actual patent

https://patents.google.com/patent/EP...oq=ep3519285B1

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by bicycletricycle

Also, patents are silly and the whole idea of IP is archaic. Granting somebody a temporary monopoly punishes the consumer. If we got rid of them people/companies would still innovate. In my experience they are mostly used maliciously.

I'll agree that there many things wrong with our current patent system, but the idea behind patents is sound, and actually benefits the consumer. Our founding fathers knew this, which is why the existence of a patent system was included in the first draft of the US Constitution.

A patent confers a temporary monopoly on an idea or design, in exchange for publicly disclosing the details behind the design. After the patent expired, the public is free to use the idea. In the absence of patents, the only way that anyone with a new idea can protect it is to keep it secret, including doing whatever obfuscation they felt necessary to confuse anyone who might try to figure it out. This was the basis of the guild system, which tended to stifle innovation in order to maintain their monopolies on technology. So, if anything, the patent system promotes innovation, rather than stifles it.

Now, you might argue that the duration selected for patents was based on a time when technology innovation moved at a slower pace, and in today's environment, maybe patents shouldn't last as long. But the basis behind patents is still sound.

Originally Posted by bicycletricycle

Also, in the article they talk about the fork leg conditioning the air around the legs. This may be against UCI rules as it may count as a fairing for the rider.

The UCI rules prohibit fairings (components whose only function is to improve aerodynamics), but they don't prohibit components that serve necessary functions that happen to be shaped to improve aerodynamics. For example, there are many frames with seat tubes which are shaped with an arc that follows the leading edge of the the rear wheel, which happens to improve the aerodynamic transition between frame and wheel. But the UCI requires frames to have seat tubes, so the seat tube is not a fairing, because it serves a necessary function. Likewise, I don't think anyone can argue that the fork legs and seat stays serve necessary functions.

[yinzerniner]

Originally Posted by bicycletricycle

I have to work around parents a lot in my work.

My condolences, parents are the WORST!

[bicycletricycle]

Just like any other code of laws these things have an important history of interpretation which I am not immersed in. It seems to me like either of these rules could be interpreted in a way that could make that bike illegal. I know the UCI has already checked it out so I guess they have decided some kinds of fairings are okay as long as you can argue that they are a structural component or something.

Screenshot 2021-08-02 205335 by bicycletricycle666, on Flickr

Originally Posted by unterhausen

Under UCI rules, you can implement things that work like fairings as long as they don't violate the rules about dimensions. Obviously, these fork legs are not long enough to be considered fairings under the UCI rules. Another example of things that are legal is shaping a tube like a fairing and cutting off the back. The air will eddy behind the tube and act like a fairing.

It wouldn't surprise me if the UCI just said your fork can't be this wide.

[bicycletricycle]

Well, I disagree. The type of secrecy the guilds could manage is no longer possible. Communication technologies and reverse engineering equipment have the advantage now.

I would agree shortening would be better but shortening all the way to zero would be the best. Companies would still innovate, they have no choice. Some companies would still copy, same companies that already do make a living knocking things off.

In my experience a lot of projects actually take longer and become more complicated specifically to try and incorporate some new element that can be patented, usually this element doesn't actually make the product better.

This change would alter the value proposition for big R&D projects but I believe that it would be for the better. Instead of searching around for a novel solution companies can just go straight for the best solution.

Originally Posted by Mark McM

I'll agree that there many things wrong with our current patent system, but the idea behind patents is sound, and actually benefits the consumer. Our founding fathers knew this, which is why the existence of a patent system was included in the first draft of the US Constitution.

A patent confers a temporary monopoly on an idea or design, in exchange for publicly disclosing the details behind the design. After the patent expired, the public is free to use the idea. In the absence of patents, the only way that anyone with a new idea can protect it is to keep it secret, including doing whatever obfuscation they felt necessary to confuse anyone who might try to figure it out. This was the basis of the guild system, which tended to stifle innovation in order to maintain their monopolies on technology. So, if anything, the patent system promotes innovation, rather than stifles it.

Now, you might argue that the duration selected for patents was based on a time when technology innovation moved at a slower pace, and in today's environment, maybe patents shouldn't last as long. But the basis behind patents is still sound.

[bicycletricycle]

double agree

Originally Posted by yinzerniner

My condolences, parents are the WORST!

[Mark McM]

Using a very broad interpretation of the rules, then on a traditional bike, the frame is "shielded" by the "protective screen" of the front wheel, the rear wheel is "shielded" by the protective screen of the frame, the handlebars are "shielded" by the "protective screen" of the brake levers, the stem is "shielded" by the "protective screen" of the handlebars, etc.

While the fork blades and seat stays on this new bike are placed in aerodynamically advantageous positions, they do not employ unusual shapes to enable them to act as fairings. If they had been place at a more traditional orientations, they would have used the same shapes. That's probably why the UCI gave them a pass.

[bicycletricycle]

agreed, more to the point they just decided it was okay. I don't think they have a great history of fairness when interpreting their own rules.

To be fair, it is a difficult job.

[Pastashop]

The patent system, albeit flawed, works to benefit the consumer in the long run. It’s my opinion, but based on extensive experience in this realm. Speaking as holder of several patents and commercialized technologies, startup founder, etc., and also everyday user / consumer of patented tech that never would have gotten off the ground if it weren’t for limited protection offered by patents to the innovator.

That one innovator had their idea “stolen” in the process of pitching to investors is not a new phenomenon — I deal with this issue regularly in my day job. That’s in part why the whole provisional / utility patent sequence is used, so one can lock in a priority date. (The US system at some point switched from first-to-invent to first-to-file, which disadvantages the small player relative to those with big legal budgets, but also helps to reduce “he said / she said” issues down the road.)

But back to bikes and athletes, can someone explain to me where (and how) the UCI actually draws a line on where the equipment makes it less about the athlete and more about tech?.. I mean, the vast majority of the athletes sure as heck don’t make enough in prize money to live on, so endorsement deals from the equipment companies ought to help, right?

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by Pastashop

The patent system, albeit flawed, works to benefit the consumer in the long run.

Lots snipped...Unless the patent was awarded JUST to ensure somebody else didn't manufacture something. I'll bet that happens all the time. Like buying a company, a competitor, and then closing that factory.

[Ewiser]

Here is a podcast discussing the design.
With Dimitris Katsanis

https://awesound.com/CycleSystems/ep...bs-track-bik-2