Adventure Trailers COPYCAT (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter 24HOURSOFNEVADA
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
The basic design is not in question, and anybody can build a similar trailer, but to go to the place and act as a customer to get info on making a copy.. seems kinda low.. Looks like a neat little trailer but the suspension isn't anywhere close to the AT design. its just plain torsion flex which isn't really good off-road long term.. If I was dropping big bucks Id go AT,, if I wasn't (and I'm not) I'd build myself.. and when asked the guys at AT are very helpful in giving pointers when your building your own stuff. The guy building these trailers has been around the block and seems to have acquired a rep,, not a good one.. If his prices were half I could see him making money,, but he is closer to 70-80% When your spending that much,, you have to really start looking at the company support after sale,, not just the sale.. If you were spending that on a dirt bike, or 4x4 cart you would buy a china copy for 80% the price,, maybe 40% but not 80%.. Just my 2cents.. I'm all for this guy making trailers but by bashing the competition and copying he isn't making any friends,,
You all know the saying: "You get what you pay for"
...sometimes
.
...sometimes
.
There are no copyrights for the initial construction of the trailer, and to pursue it as a trade violation would be sad, this guy spent a lot of time making something for himself based on a very pricey but none the less one of the best rigs on the trail.
so i guess every utitity trailer or car hauler on the road is a "COPY CAT" trailer????!!!!??
it would seem that just b/c someone builds for the the public does not mean that they are the only ones to have the design rights.
has anyone asked adventure trailer where they got their design?
like configuring metal boxes on a frame is something they teach at the deisgn institute.
this sounds more like a "sour grapes" issue.
it would seem that just b/c someone builds for the the public does not mean that they are the only ones to have the design rights.
has anyone asked adventure trailer where they got their design?
like configuring metal boxes on a frame is something they teach at the deisgn institute.
this sounds more like a "sour grapes" issue.
Have you guy's even read the HUGE thread over at Expo?
Horizon Trailer COPYCAT - Expedition Portal Forums
Horizon Trailer COPYCAT - Expedition Portal Forums
allegedly the guy went to AT as a customer but was blown away by the price and not completely impressed by the options. he decided he cold build a better trailer for less. many of us are home fabricators for the exact same reason. he also says he built a similar trailer for a plumber some 20 yrs ago, it'll be interesting if he can produce a pic or two.
Does anybody know where I can buy the bad ass jugs he has on the front of that trailer?
Drivesector
Drivesector
Here's an interesting quote posted by Mark Donovan of Adventure Trailers on another website:
"In the picture of Bob’s trailer we see five violations of the FVMSS* rules, one CARB rule and one California DMV rule. While these things will not prevent a trailer from being registered, it would provide a lawyer with a good argument should an accident take place."
(* This is probably a typo. He probably meant FMVSS Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards)
Any of you spot any violations? Particularly CARB, which is the California Air Resources Board. What would they have to do with trailers?
"In the picture of Bob’s trailer we see five violations of the FVMSS* rules, one CARB rule and one California DMV rule. While these things will not prevent a trailer from being registered, it would provide a lawyer with a good argument should an accident take place."
(* This is probably a typo. He probably meant FMVSS Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards)
Any of you spot any violations? Particularly CARB, which is the California Air Resources Board. What would they have to do with trailers?
49 CFR, 575.6 (a)
Justia :: 49 C.F.R. § 567.4 Requirements for manufacturers of motor vehicles.
Uh oh, Bob did not attach a riveted data plate to his prototype trailer.
-------------------------
49 CFR, 571.108, S5.7
49 CFR 571.108 - Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. - Code of Federal Regulations - Title 49: Transportation - vLex
Bob's reflectors apparently are not good enough, he needs to install reflectorized film instead on his prototype trailer.
-------------------------
49 CFR, subpart C, 393.43
Justia :: 49 C.F.R. Subpart C—Brakes
Bob has not installed a break-away brake system on his prototype trailer.
-------------------------
CARB Div 12, CH 3, Art 1, sec 26303
I've not been able to work my way through the convoluted maze of regulations at CARB (California Air Resources Board). Can't find a specific section 26303. I think this has something to do with the Portable Fuel Containers (gas cans), as searches keep coming back to that as the nearest match.
-------------------------
CCR, Title 13, Div 3, CH 9, Art 6, sec 2467
I can't post a usable link, but apparently he can't sell those particular fuel containers in California.
2467. Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in Section 2467.3, this article applies to any person who sells, supplies, offers for sale, advertises or manufactures for sale in California portable fuel containers or spouts or both portable fuel containers and spouts for use in California.
(b) Except as provided by Section 2467.3, no person shall sell, supply, offer for sale, advertise, or manufacture for sale in California a portable fuel container or spout or both portable fuel container and spout on or after July 1, 2007 unless said portable fuel container or spout or both portable fuel container and spout is covered by an Executive Order issued pursuant to this article.
-----------------------------
I'm pretty disappointed in Mark Donovan. He posts what appears to be damning indictments of Bob's PROTOTYPE trailer, without mentioning specifics as to what they are. When looked up, they're all pretty nitpicky for a PROTOTYPE trailer. If this was a PRODUCTION trailer, then Mark's criticism would quite valid.
Justia :: 49 C.F.R. § 567.4 Requirements for manufacturers of motor vehicles.
Uh oh, Bob did not attach a riveted data plate to his prototype trailer.
-------------------------
49 CFR, 571.108, S5.7
49 CFR 571.108 - Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. - Code of Federal Regulations - Title 49: Transportation - vLex
Bob's reflectors apparently are not good enough, he needs to install reflectorized film instead on his prototype trailer.
-------------------------
49 CFR, subpart C, 393.43
Justia :: 49 C.F.R. Subpart C—Brakes
Bob has not installed a break-away brake system on his prototype trailer.
-------------------------
CARB Div 12, CH 3, Art 1, sec 26303
I've not been able to work my way through the convoluted maze of regulations at CARB (California Air Resources Board). Can't find a specific section 26303. I think this has something to do with the Portable Fuel Containers (gas cans), as searches keep coming back to that as the nearest match.
-------------------------
CCR, Title 13, Div 3, CH 9, Art 6, sec 2467
I can't post a usable link, but apparently he can't sell those particular fuel containers in California.
2467. Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in Section 2467.3, this article applies to any person who sells, supplies, offers for sale, advertises or manufactures for sale in California portable fuel containers or spouts or both portable fuel containers and spouts for use in California.
(b) Except as provided by Section 2467.3, no person shall sell, supply, offer for sale, advertise, or manufacture for sale in California a portable fuel container or spout or both portable fuel container and spout on or after July 1, 2007 unless said portable fuel container or spout or both portable fuel container and spout is covered by an Executive Order issued pursuant to this article.
-----------------------------
I'm pretty disappointed in Mark Donovan. He posts what appears to be damning indictments of Bob's PROTOTYPE trailer, without mentioning specifics as to what they are. When looked up, they're all pretty nitpicky for a PROTOTYPE trailer. If this was a PRODUCTION trailer, then Mark's criticism would quite valid.
the real question are the FASHION police available for a comment?
build it and they will come.................
the s*** out of it.
keep on keepn' on.
do some of these people cry themselves to sleep at night.......
build it and they will come.................
the s*** out of it. keep on keepn' on.do some of these people cry themselves to sleep at night.......
Should we string up AT for copying the Canadian an US gov't for knocking off the M101 trailer with the chaser? Comparable shopping and Competitive shopping have been going on for ever. Gauranteed that AT went and looked at a handful of off road trailers while or before they started design of thier product. It's called design, not completely unique ideas, Innovation. A good designer solves the problem of existing designs and on a small scale develops completely unique ideas. The reason AT doesn't have a patent, is because thier product isn't patentable due to the fact that it is most likely in the public domain, because that style has been done before.
Rant off
I can understand, right off the bat why 24hrs was bummed on the dude, don't bag on your competition, just beat them up by making a better product at a better price, much loader.
I like the trailer idea, the smurf blue is cool, nuff said.
24hr, thanks for pointing this out, good to see someone pushing a market. small and probably not very profitable, but still pushing a market.
I'll stop bitching!!!
xoxo
Rant off
I can understand, right off the bat why 24hrs was bummed on the dude, don't bag on your competition, just beat them up by making a better product at a better price, much loader.
I like the trailer idea, the smurf blue is cool, nuff said.
24hr, thanks for pointing this out, good to see someone pushing a market. small and probably not very profitable, but still pushing a market.
I'll stop bitching!!!
xoxo
73fj
Tho at sumbitch in ayer!
If you have the talent and skills to build something for less, usually half, of what someone else is charging,I say GO FOR IT! The satisfaction involved in building is beyond measure.
Interesting comments on both sides of this. Isn't imitation the greatest form of flatery? Some have said it's unethical for him to have spent a couple of hours at AT looking things over. You dont' think competitors in the market don't do that all the time? Wake up. AT looks like it's got a beautiful product. I've drooled on their website a few times, however, if they had a patentable idea/product, they should have done so to prevent what 'Bob' is doing. They could have then licensed the patent to 'Bob' to use and made money that way too!
