# Does Pinarello have a patent on wavy stays/forks?



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

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?


----------



## dinosaurs (Nov 29, 2011)

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.


----------



## dinosaurs (Nov 29, 2011)

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.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

dinosaurs said:


> 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.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

dinosaurs said:


> 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.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

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.


----------



## Waxbytes (Sep 22, 2004)

Other than to make a fake Pinarello who would want to copy that design anyway?


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

trailrunner68 said:


> 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.


----------



## dinosaurs (Nov 29, 2011)

orange_julius said:


> 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).


----------



## dinosaurs (Nov 29, 2011)

Also, it looks like the same patent has been filed with the European patent office, as well as Canadian, Japanese and...*Chinese* offices. :lol:


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

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


Hopefully this will give it a better chance.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

dinosaurs said:


> 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.
> ...


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?


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

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.


----------



## WTFcyclist (Jan 17, 2012)

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.*
> ...


This is their site map.
www.pinarello.it/eng/site_map.php

Again, this company is full of nonsense.


----------



## dinosaurs (Nov 29, 2011)

orange_julius said:


> 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. :thumbsup:


----------



## oldcannondale (Jul 23, 2011)

WTFcyclist said:


> 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
> ...


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?


----------



## PaxRomana (Jan 16, 2012)

oldcannondale said:


> 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.


----------



## gordy748 (Feb 11, 2007)

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.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

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.


----------



## dinosaurs (Nov 29, 2011)

Cinelli, just curious, what did you like about the Pinarello over others that you have ridden?


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

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.


----------

