HillRider

The more you historians post, the less original this concept sounds.

FBinNY 

Hence the "not so NEW.It's basically a remake of the Cinelli Bi-valent concept. I actually feel that executed well the idea has virtues, but feel bad for the "inventor" since if there's any success, he'll find he has little or no patent protection because of the prior art.

linus

Axle flex. Cantilevering.

Dux_Helm

I was so curious about this idea, excited about it, that I actually called the inventor. Leonard. Nice, older guy.
Apparently he's been tinkering with this for years.
He has a full patent protection on it (5 different patents), so I suppose the solution must be different enough, or else the old patents expired..Or were not N.A patents.

Hope it works out for them. Hope to see it on some bikes soon.

FBinNY 

Once a patent expires the design passes into the public domain and cannot be patented anew. The fact that patents were issued doesn't mean anything. It could be that his attorney or the examiner didn't do decent enough research and find the prior art. Or he could have some narrow patents on specific details of the design.

Unfortunately about 30 or so years ago the US patent office changed the way they do business. Prior they used to resist issuing patents, carefully searching for prior art, or because the invention wasn't novel enough. Later they gave all that up, and would issue a patent on just about anything, leaving it up to the courts to review the various claims presented by litigants fighting or defending patents. Since then, the number of patents issued has skyrocketed, but the number not sustained has risen just as fast.

It's an expensive game where each side can easily spend 1/4 million dollars (for starters) arguing about patents, long after they've expired.

Kimmo

It's a bloody nightmare.

IthaDan 

Pretty sure it's both.



(reposting this from another forum)

[in response to the increased dish of this system] ...As far as dish goes It's no different than a current shimano freehub. Because it is a [blue anodized] carbon copy of a shimano freehub- those are the same male splines on the hub body and that's a shimano freewheeling mechanism (those are tiny ball bearings you see on the outer ring, outside the keyway, maybe they removed a dust cover?):





The kicker is that with a solid axle system, number 13 on the schematic here threads into the barrel of the hub unifying the rotating parts of the hub's body and providing strength in tandem with the solid axle. This design forgoes the added strength of #13 there, and puts all the stress on the axle. The threading of the two axle halves needs to be coarse enough to tighten in few enough turns to keep the most ADD cyclists happy while providing enough purchase to provide the strength of the solid axle as well as the integrated rotating body of the hub shell and #13. I have a feeling he's using that blue hub for a couple of reasons- not only to add a little bling, because, let's face it, there's not a whole lot of desire in paying for a novel idea if you can't show it off, and axles aren't that sexy, and also because aftermarket hubs can not only be found with larger diameter axles (strength ++), but equipped with cartridge bearings (no preload requirement) as well. I have a sneaking suspicion that there is an added bearing inside the hub shell, there should be anyway- if not ALL the strength of the wheel relies on a press fit of the splines for the ratcheting mechanism- but I can't see it. If there isn't at least a third set of bearings past the two pictured in the diagram, then we're not just dealing with a poor design, we're dealing with a dangerous design.

I think the concept has merit as an idea, but it's nothing new. Hell the cinelli bivalent design was conceived to create a solution where a single wheel could serve as both a front or a rear wheel.

What frustrates me more than anything else is that there's really no reason (other than loose-ball bearing preload I guess, but cartridge bearings can surely be made to fit in shimano cups) that the HubDock solution couldn't exist as a retrofit axle for the gazillion shimano freehubs out in the wild already.

Am I missing something here?

Kimmo

I'd say so; the whole point of this silly exercise is avoiding having to learn proper technique: it's epic fail from start to finish.

rpenmanparker 

You have it backwards IMO. Having the rear qiuick release face forward is considered the safest way. The risk is having another bike come up behind you and flick open your quick release with its front wheel. That can't happen with the quick release pointed forward. I have been pointing my rear quick release that way for 30 years.

rpenmanparker 

All true. Once something is known to the public, it can't be patented.

FBinNY 

You had to dredge up a 1 year old thread just to add that? (sorry, it's only 364 days old)

Why**********

Drew Eckhardt 

It's a lousy idea. Swapping a conventional wheel is faster, possible using hubs which don't cost $350, and doesn't require a 415 gram hub even when you want strain gauges and electronics for power measurement (Powertap G3 hubs are 330g and a conventional Shimano or Campagnolo skewer around 65g).

Removing a hubdock wheel means opening a quick release, unthreading/pulling out an axle, and dropping the wheel.

Installing one means setting the wheel in the drop-outs, threading the axle back in, adjusting the quick release, and tightening the quick release.

Removing a regular rear wheel means shifting to the small cog (two thumb shoves on current Campagnolo or one button press with new fangled electronic shifting ), flipping the quick release, and removing it while holding the derailleur out of the way.

Installing one means holding the derailleur out of the way, setting it in the drop-out, and flipping the quick release.