Custom Radius Arms (1 Viewer)

[Ebag333]

Course, then you get no castor adjustment, no length adjust.

There are ways to do caster adjustment with cast arms.

If you're looking to do both arms, and cast them and sell them, even to 10 people, you've got patient issues with Superior Engineering.

I guarantee you I can find at least 20 patents that you will infringe on no matter what design you pick. Patents are granted every day that are incredibly vague.

Besides, patent's aren't suppose to cover an idea, just execution (which would be different). And Superior Engineering is in Australia, doubt anyone from there would be interested anyway.

I still say as far as simplicity, to gain flex, caster adjustment, ect., without the complexity of a 3-link, Y-radius arm is the way to go - I really doubt you'll find that much more slop in the system, and you can tune that by the choice of bushing as well.

Something like this

One Up Offroad Adjustable Link Arms - 2005-2011 F250/350/450 4wd - Truck Toyz Store

is so much cheaper than investing in casting / forging arms - even if you add the cost of a heavier sway bar (which I'm not convinced you'd need).

Notice one thing in common with the price on most of these arms? North of $1k.

In order to make it worth while to do cast arms, they'd have to be half that price. I think that it's feasible to get enough people interested to reach that price (the number is less than you think), but will have to see.

Assembled or machined arms are cheaper for one or two at a time. Cast is cheaper if you're running a batch. As long as you can offset the casting cost, it's far cheaper than assembled or machined arms.

 

[Walking Eagle]

I guarantee you I can find at least 20 patents that you will infringe on no matter what design you pick. Patents are granted every day that are incredibly vague.

Besides, patent's aren't suppose to cover an idea, just execution (which would be different). And Superior Engineering is in Australia, doubt anyone from there would be interested anyway.

A patent is not a right to practice or use the invention.[14] Rather, a patent provides the right to exclude others[14] from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the patented invention for the term of the patent, which is usually 20 years from the filing date[3] subject to the payment of maintenance fees. A patent is, in effect, a limited property right that the government offers to inventors in exchange for their agreement to share the details of their inventions with the public. Like any other property right, it may be sold, licensed, mortgaged, assigned or transferred, given away, or simply abandoned.

In other words, yes, it is supposed to cover the idea - as in I had an idea at work and we're patenting it so the competition can't build their product that way.

 

[kidglove13]

There is some good stuff going on here
I still think that JADO's use of the jeep long arms is a good starting point
Or a standard 3 link
Its a tough call because I want more flex but not spring dropping flex.

 

[Ebag333]

In other words, yes, it is supposed to cover the idea - as in I had an idea at work and we're patenting it so the competition can't build their product that way.

Doesn't really matter as courts often treat the idea the same as the execution. Won't get into a patent debate with you (that's a whole other can of worms), but suffice to say there are patents that cover your direction as well. (Tube Y arm)

There are also (overly broad) patents that cover (essentially) welding two pieces of metal together.


Guess I shouldn't do anything at all then lest I step on someones patent. Or maybe I should license a bunch of these patents and go around trolling, I know I could come up with at least a half dozen that Tools has stepped on.

 

[Walking Eagle]

but suffice to say there are patents that cover your direction as well. (Tube Y arm).

Prove it.


Besides, I can copy any patent I want as long as I'm only building for myself, just can't sell it, as you are proposing.

 

[Ebag333]

Prove it.


Besides, I can copy any patent I want as long as I'm only building for myself, just can't sell it, as you are proposing.

Dana has one that's a similar design. Not exact, but very similar. For instance, placing one link below and behind the axle, and the other above and behind. And you only have to infringe on part of the patent to get sued (don't have to infringe on the whole thing). RE's design is likely patented, you're pretty much suggesting ripping them off wholesale.

And I'm not selling it. It would actually be a group buy. I would make no money off of it.

 

[Walking Eagle]

Dana has one that's a similar design. Not exact, but very similar. For instance, placing one link below and behind the axle, and the other above and behind. And you only have to infringe on part of the patent to get sued (don't have to infringe on the whole thing). RE's design is likely patented, you're pretty much suggesting ripping them off wholesale.

Sorry, that basic radius arm design has been around for years, so that, the fact that multiple companies make it, and that RE doesn't say it's patented, I'm guessing it isn't patented. And I'm not suggesting copying their stuff and selling it. Superior Engineering has the patient # right up at the top of their superflex arms, so there is little doubt that it is patented. I take offense at you accusing me of suggesting ripping RE off.

And I'm not selling it. It would actually be a group buy. I would make no money off of it.

Humm.... I give you money, and you give me arms - that's pretty much selling - if you make any money off it or not is irrelevant.

So, at this point do whatever the hell you want (which I'm guessing is not going to be to make any arms).

 

[Ebag333]

I take offense at you accusing me of suggesting ripping RE off.

Now that's amusing.

You accuse me of ripping of SE, then when I point out you've been using RE (and similar) arms as a basis for what you'd like to see, you get upset about it.

So, at this point do whatever the hell you want (which I'm guessing is not going to be to make any arms).

Well I'd hoped for tech. Last I checked, patent laws weren't tech to this forum.

 

[Walking Eagle]

Now that's amusing.

You accuse me of ripping of SE, then when I point out you've been using RE (and similar) arms as a basis for what you'd like to see, you get upset about it.

ripping off RE and simular? hummm.... if there are simular ones out there it's not patented and not ripping them off. That's like saying if I was going to do a leaf spring front suspension I would be ripping off Jeep. It's also not ripping them off cause I'm NOT SELLING ANYTHING. Not even making anything for myself. Nor have I even said that's what I'd like to see - just that that design (which I've made no claims to) has significant advantages and that you're wrong for thinking you'll get cast arms (and as said at the begining by someone - stock is actually forged) made anywhere near as inexpensively as you could do welded steel arms. And of course you're wrong for believing a weld is going to be a failure point.

Well I'd hoped for tech. Last I checked, patent laws weren't tech to this forum.

Patent laws are pertinant as soon as you decide to sell any of these, group buy or otherwise. As someone who works for a company that has to defend it's patents against duche bags copying stuff we've invested millions in developing, I feel it's important.

 

[Tapage]

back on topic .. ( that was tech and interesting ) I like the concept behind those ford arms .. which I don't like it's the adjustable section in the lower link .. and sure they can be done more affordable ..

 

[Pin_Head]

I doubt that there are any active patents on anything related to control arms. Patents only last for 20 years and to be patentable, the idea has to be novel and not anticipated by prior art, publicly disclosed work or obvious to a knowlegable individual. Everything about control arms has been known and tried for at least 80 years, so any patents have long expired.

They don't pass out patents in Cracker Jacks boxes. The USPTO is more likely to reject valid claims ( at least initially) than grant invalid claims. I know. I hold several patents and I just got a notice of partial rejection of claims from the USPTO just yesterday that we have to appeal.

The other thing is you won't get sued for making a few 10s of thousands of dollars for infringing a patent because there is no money in it. You might get a cease and desist letter from an attorney, but they aren't going to take you to court for small money.

You can infringe on any patent for your own use. You just can't make money on it.

 

[Ebag333]

I doubt that there are any active patents on anything related to control arms. Patents only last for 20 years and to be patentable, the idea has to be novel and not anticipated by prior art, publicly disclosed work or obvious to a knowlegable individual. Everything about control arms has been known and tried for at least 80 years, so any patents have long expired.

That's great in theory, but until someone actually patents it the USPTO likes to pretend that it didn't exist. So it might be around for 50 years, but when the first patent rolls in the USPTO starts the 20 year clock. There are many patents with tons of prior art that have been granted.

They don't pass out patents in Cracker Jacks boxes. The USPTO is more likely to reject valid claims ( at least initially) than grant invalid claims. I know. I hold several patents and I just got a notice of partial rejection of claims from the USPTO just yesterday that we have to appeal.

The problem is you can revise patents indefinitely, the USPTO doesn't seem to ever give final rejections.

Look at Apples recent patent for something that's totally obvious, has tons of prior art, is a continuation patent, and was rejected 3 times (before finally being accepted). Sadly, there are a lot of patents like this one.

I was just looking at one about welding round tube to flat plate (talk about vague in some parts). Likely anyone who's ever welded tube to plate has infringed on parts of that one.

The other thing is you won't get sued for making a few 10s of thousands of dollars for infringing a patent because there is no money in it. You might get a cease and desist letter from an attorney, but they aren't going to take you to court for small money.

You can infringe on any patent for your own use. You just can't make money on it.

This.

If it's a one time run where no one makes any money, just a bunch of guys ordering a part as a group buy, not going to get sued.

 

[Pin_Head]

There are many patents with tons of prior art that have been granted.

That is certainly not my experience. The design just needs to be published or publicly disclosed or obvious to a knowlegable person to be in the public domain and not be patentable.

BTW, the "patents" listed by Superior Engineering are "pending". Anybody with $2000 for the filing fee can have a "pending" patent in the US, but it doesn't necessarily mean anything. The SE pending patents are also not US patents because I searched.

Any patented device or composition of matter that is worth significant money gets litigated. The courts have the final say over what is and is not patentable.

 

[Ebag333]

That is certainly not my experience. The design just needs to be published or publicly disclosed or obvious to a knowlegable person to be in the public domain and not be patentable.

The problem is, most of the time the examiner is not a knowledgeable person. Plus there are hundreds if not thousands of pending patents for every examiner.

Take this one issued in 2000 to Exxon.

The invention relates to a method for forming a welded joint between abutting pieces of steel. The welded joint is produced by first forming a strength weld and then depositing additional weld metal on the toe of the strength weld to form a toughness weld. The fusion interface of the toughness weld forms a minimum angle with the direction of the maximum tensile load across the welded joint. The toughness weld toe is separated from the heat affected zone of the strength weld to effectively prevent propagation of a crack initiated at the toughness weld toe into the heat affected zone of the strength weld. The welded joint so produced is substantially resistant to failure by brittle fracture.

It's basically...well...a patent on how to weld a joint (specially, weld a good joint). While there are are a few things in the patent that probably should be patentable, much of it is pretty obvious, and plenty of prior art. (And I didn't dig for that one either, took less than 30 seconds of searching.)

Check out EFF's patent busting project, they're going after software patents, but some of those are scarily obvious (even to a non-expert in the field).

BTW, the "patents" listed by Superior Engineering are "pending". Anybody with $2000 for the filing fee can have a "pending" patent in the US, but it doesn't necessarily mean anything. The SE pending patents are also not US patents because I searched.

Any patented device or composition of matter that is worth significant money gets litigated. The courts have the final say over what is and is not patentable.

So I guess there's no issue with stealing SE's design (or at least the basic idea behind it).




Anyway, I find patents (and the whole economy behind them) fascinating, but as mentioned before it's a bit off for 80 series chat.

 

[Delancy]

Guessing this stalled at the patent office, but curious if any developments were made prior to that.

 

[Kevin8086]

Anything ever happen here?