Results 1 to 21 of 21
  1. #1
    classiquesklassieker
    Reputation: orange_julius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    3,068

    Does Pinarello have a patent on wavy stays/forks?

    For sure I am a fool for even trying this, but can we discuss what intellectual property Pinarello actually has, that has been published?

    I know about the Trademark move that they are making from CyclingIQ.
    Princes, thieves and make-believe | Pinarello fights for its name

    A quick search on Google patents yielded two US patents:
    Patent US20100096832 - Turbular frame for bicycles, particularly with classic diamond shape - Google Patents
    Patent US6626604 - Bicycle connecting element, particularly for connecting carbon rear forks to ... - Google Patents

    First is a patent titled "Turbular frame for bicycles, particularly with classic diamond shape", US 2010/0096832 A1.

    The second is titled "A connecting element, particularly for connecting rear forks, also known as monostays, made of carbon to bicycle frames", US 2003/006626604.

    I am most interested in the first one because looking at the claims suggests they patented asymmetric tubes, and possibly also the wavy stays/forks.

    Perhaps somebody who is good at reading technical mechanical design patents can help me out?

    Coolhand, any bets on how before this thread gets shut down?

  2. #2
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: dinosaurs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    60
    The first is a patent application, and is either being reviewed or was denied.

    But yeah, it looks like they were trying to patent the use of asymmetric cross-section tubing in the first. The second looks like its just a method of attaching chain/seat stays.

  3. #3
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: dinosaurs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    60
    I'll look closer at the claims.

    Also, I'm not sure there's a way to easily check if an application has been denied or if its just in the backlog waiting review, unless you are the person filing the patent.

  4. #4
    classiquesklassieker
    Reputation: orange_julius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    3,068
    Quote Originally Posted by dinosaurs View Post
    The first is a patent application, and is either being reviewed or was denied.

    But yeah, it looks like they were trying to patent the use of asymmetric cross-section tubing in the first. The second looks like its just a method of attaching chain/seat stays.
    You're right, it is a published application, it hasn't been granted.

    I understood the parts regarding asymmetric cross-section tubing. But in describing the chain stay in the claims, they broke it down into multiple segments, and described how they are connected.

    This is what led me to think they may be trying to patent the wavy shape.

  5. #5
    classiquesklassieker
    Reputation: orange_julius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    3,068
    Quote Originally Posted by dinosaurs View Post
    I'll look closer at the claims.

    Also, I'm not sure there's a way to easily check if an application has been denied or if its just in the backlog waiting review, unless you are the person filing the patent.
    Thanks.

    Good question about checking the status. In my experience, it takes 5-7 years to get a full-on patent granted. So I imagine it takes at least half that long to get one denied, unless it's really obvious. This one was filed in 2009.

    If there is a convenient place to find a list of denied applications, I imagine patent squatters would be all over that.

  6. #6
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    819
    I think it would fall under trade dress. The wavy shape could not be patented unless you can allege that it has a purpose other than cosmetic.

  7. #7
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Waxbytes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    178
    Other than to make a fake Pinarello who would want to copy that design anyway?

  8. #8
    classiquesklassieker
    Reputation: orange_julius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    3,068
    Quote Originally Posted by trailrunner68 View Post
    I think it would fall under trade dress. The wavy shape could not be patented unless you can allege that it has a purpose other than cosmetic.
    Good point, this may be the reason for the language in which they wrote the claims.

  9. #9
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: dinosaurs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by orange_julius View Post
    Thanks.

    Good question about checking the status. In my experience, it takes 5-7 years to get a full-on patent granted. So I imagine it takes at least half that long to get one denied, unless it's really obvious. This one was filed in 2009.

    If there is a convenient place to find a list of denied applications, I imagine patent squatters would be all over that.
    One of my former roommates works for the patent office, but I already know he will not check or inform me what the status of it is.

    Claim 1: Top tube or down tube of the frame is structurally asymmetric.
    Claim 2: Top tube is asymmetric.
    Claim 3: Down tube is asymmetric.
    Claim 4: Both are asymmetric
    Claim 5: Asymmetric shape, constant wall thickness.
    Claim 6: Symmetrical shape, different right/left wall thickness
    Claim 7: Defining seat tube/stays.
    Claim 8: 7 is structurally asymmetric
    Claim 9: Asymmetric shape of 7 with respect to longitudinal plane, constant wall thickness
    Claim 10: Symmetric shape of 7 with respect to longitudinal plane but with different wall thicknesses

    Looking at their definitions of tubular bodies, I think it you are right with the part about segments (on the seat stays).
    Last edited by dinosaurs; 03-14-2012 at 12:27 PM.

  10. #10
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: dinosaurs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    60
    Also, it looks like the same patent has been filed with the European patent office, as well as Canadian, Japanese and...Chinese offices.

  11. #11
    flinty-eyed moderator
    Reputation: Coolhand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    12,171
    Coolhand, any bets on how before this thread gets shut down?
    Hopefully this will give it a better chance.
    Dr. Cox: Lady, people aren't chocolates. Do you know what they are mostly? Bastards. Bastard-coated bastards with bastard fillings. But I don't find them half as annoying as I find naive bubble-headed optimists who walk around vomiting sunshine.

  12. #12
    classiquesklassieker
    Reputation: orange_julius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    3,068
    Quote Originally Posted by dinosaurs View Post
    One of my former roommates works for the patent office, but I already know he will not check or inform me what the status of it is.

    Claim 1: Top tube or down tube of the frame is structurally asymmetric.
    Claim 2: Top tube is asymmetric.
    Claim 3: Down tube is asymmetric.
    Claim 4: Both are asymmetric
    Claim 5: Asymmetric shape, constant wall thickness.
    Claim 6: Symmetrical shape, different right/left wall thickness
    Claim 7: Defining seat tube/stays.
    Claim 8: 7 is structurally asymmetric
    Claim 9: Asymmetric shape of 7 with respect to longitudinal plane, constant wall thickness
    Claim 10: Symmetric shape of 7 with respect to longitudinal plane but with different wall thicknesses

    Looking at their definitions of tubular bodies, I think it you are right with the part about segments (on the seat stays).
    Actually, I think Claim 7 defines a seat tube and seat stays, but I don't see how the curviness is defined within it.

    As far as I can follow, 1st tubular body is the top tube. 2nd is the down tube. 4th is the seat tube. Or, is it the seatpost? Thus, the 3rd is the seat tube?

  13. #13
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4,453
    It looks like the claim is specifically for the assymentric concept, and the specific cross sections of the frame tubes. There is no reference to the wavy stays or forks.
    They may be a separate patent, but the idea has been around since at least the 1930s. Hetchins and other frame builders in England made frames with curved stays, and some still do.
    To obtain a patent, Pinarello would have to describe some benefit or unique characteristic of such stays/forks. This would be easy to documenting the damping of vibration or shock absorption. Pinarello likely have plenty of relevant data, and no doubt they did extensive computer modelling of the frame as well before production.
    Or they could copyright it, similar to the Coca Cola copyright for their bottle shape. Then they would not have to produce any technical data.

  14. #14
    WTF = Wide Tire Fits
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    100
    I cannot find any explanation about the wavy stays/forks on their cheesy website. I don't think they have a patent nor scientific explanation on this. I think it's gimmick.

    They only mention about "Think Asymmetric."
    www.pinarello.it/eng/products_technology_gear.php
    Think Asymmetric
    We were confifident in the merit of the Dogma, and now a new road opens up in building racing frames.
    Pinarello has always been the symbol of innovation in the cycling world. Just consider that we were first in oversized tubing, integrated headset, magnesium frames, the ONDA fork, oversized bottom bracket, and in 2009 the fifirst completely asymmetric frame: DOGMA.
    The worldwide success of DOGMA 60.1 Asymmetric, as confifirmed by awards from the most authoritative international cycling magazines, has convinced us to enthusiastically stay the course of asymmetry for our entire range.
    Both the British Cycling Federation and Team Sky wanted Pinarello as their technical partner, seeing us as a key player in bicycle innovation. These collaborations have already proven productive. They have given rise to the new KOBH 60.1 and the extraordinary new time trial machine GRAAL, baptised by Bradley Wiggins with his victory at the prologue of the Giro d'Italia 2010. Our story continues, always out in front, always giving our best!
    But they called those wavy stays/forks "ONDA."
    www.pinarello.it/eng/products_technology_chassis.php
    www.pinarello.it/eng/products_technology_forks.php
    1999 The birth of the OPERA brand: The first carbon fiber frames with glued lugs.
    2001 Pinarello introduces the first Compact Carbon fiber crankset.
    2002 Birth of DOGMA- the first frame in AK61 Magnesium
    2002 ONDA Carbon fiber fork and rear monostay.
    2003 Mirror finish DOGMA EGO
    2004 Oversize Bottom Bracket for DOGMA
    2005 F4:13 the first carbon Monocoque from Pinarello
    This is their site map.
    www.pinarello.it/eng/site_map.php

    Again, this company is full of nonsense.

  15. #15
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: dinosaurs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by orange_julius View Post
    Actually, I think Claim 7 defines a seat tube and seat stays, but I don't see how the curviness is defined within it.

    As far as I can follow, 1st tubular body is the top tube. 2nd is the down tube. 4th is the seat tube. Or, is it the seatpost? Thus, the 3rd is the seat tube?
    The third oblique tubular body is seat stay bridge, according to [0047]. The fourth tubular body is the seat tube (substantially vertical).

    Cinelli 82220: agreed.

  16. #16
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    58

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by WTFcyclist View Post
    I cannot find any explanation about the wavy stays/forks on their cheesy website. I don't think they have a patent nor scientific explanation on this. I think it's gimmick.

    They only mention about "Think Asymmetric."
    www.pinarello.it/eng/products_technology_gear.php


    But they called those wavy stays/forks "ONDA."
    www.pinarello.it/eng/products_technology_chassis.php
    www.pinarello.it/eng/products_technology_forks.php


    This is their site map.
    .
    Again, this company is full of nonsense.
    No, they just make sexy italian bicycles, as opposed to motorcycles, think Ducati, as opposed to automobiles, think Ferrari. Think they're overpriced sure, but they are cool and they do ride nicely. But your the wide tire dude, you prolly don't understand?

  17. #17
    Daft Punk built my hotrod
    Reputation: PaxRomana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,748
    Quote Originally Posted by oldcannondale View Post
    No, they just make sexy italian bicycles, as opposed to motorcycles, think Ducati, as opposed to automobiles, think Ferrari. Think they're overpriced sure, but they are cool and they do ride nicely. But your the wide tire dude, you prolly don't understand?
    Ducati and Ferrari are both made in Italy. Pinarello is not. They make nice Taiwanese bicycles. They do look nice and are excellent descenders though.

  18. #18
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    674
    I think Pinarellos look like a dog's breakfast. To me the bends are the dings it got as it fell out of the ugly tree as a young child, hitting every branch on the way down.

    I am sure they ride nice, though. You don't get pros going quick on them if they don't.

  19. #19
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4,453
    I was pretty sceptical myself, and made a couple of rude comments here...
    Then I tried one, and bought it. It's frikkin great.
    'Nuf said.

  20. #20
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: dinosaurs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    60
    Cinelli, just curious, what did you like about the Pinarello over others that you have ridden?

  21. #21
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4,453
    After watching Paris Roubaix last year I was going to buy an R3 that afternoon on impulse. I hadn't bought a new road bike since 1982 (custom Cinelli), and thought it was time. I tried Cervelo R3 and R5, nice but not lively. Tried the the S3 but the chainstays, WTF is up with those things? And the fiddly cable routing into the top tube, I already heard about that from a friend who had a heck of a time installing it.
    Madone, it was okay but not really exciting and too common, I wanted something a little out of the ordinary. Cannondale Super Six (I think, not sure), same thing. Looked at Specialized Tarmac, Venge and Roubaix but their geometry in small sizes is awful.
    I tried a Giant TCR and liked it a lot, very quick handling and very light.
    I'd been on steel and titanium forever. I wanted a new bike but it had to be a quantum leap from my beloved Cinelli, not just something a bit lighter, something with that WOW factor. Looked at a Cinelli XCR, beautiful and well thought out design but there was no way to test ride one in my size and there was a year long wait for custom geometry. So I kept looking. I read of a few members here who had bikes they were kind of disappointed with, so no way was I going to buy something I hadn't actually tried out in person.
    Eventually, on holiday in the UK, had a chance to try a couple of Colnagos, a C59 and an EPQ and they were very good, and finally the Dogma. The Pinarello had a slightly better finish that the Colnago. Stiff but very comfortable, very precise handling, and the looks actually grew on me. And it is very unique, I have never seen another where I live in Canada.
    Thinking of trading up to a Dogma2, but waiting to see what Wiggins' proto is all about.
    Last edited by Cinelli 82220; 03-16-2012 at 01:26 PM.

Posting Permissions

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

Hot Deals

Contest

Tour De France

Latest RoadBike Articles


Latest Videos

RoadbikeReview on Facebook