Trek’s Active Braking Pivot Issued US Patent

Nov 23, 2010
by Mike Levy  


(Waterloo, WI) - Today, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued Trek Bicycle a patent on its Active Braking Pivot (ABP) suspension system, #7,837,213. Invented by Trek suspension engineers James Colegrove, Dylan Howes, and Jose Gonzalez, ABP has been praised for being the first suspension technology to effectively separate braking and suspension forces. This separation allows the suspension to remain active while the rear brake is engaged.

photo

Trek’s ABP patent has broad implications, as it covers a concentric pivot in combination with much more sophisticated and varied types of rear suspension designs. ABP, utilizing a concentric rear pivot, was first introduced to the marketplace in May of 2007 and has since evolved to become the foundation of Trek’s full-suspension bikes, offered on eight platforms to date. From its origins in 2006 to today’s 2011 Trek full suspension lineup, Active Braking Pivot remains a competitive performance advantage found exclusively on Trek and Trek’s Gary Fisher Collection full-suspension mountain bikes. Now patented, ABP is further proof of Trek’s commitment to leading the world in mountain bike technology.


Visit the Trek website for more information on ABP.

Posted In:
Press Releases Trek


Author Info:
mikelevy avatar

Member since Oct 18, 2005
2,032 articles
Report
Must Read This Week
Pole Bicycles Has Filed for Bankruptcy
56896 views
First Ride: The Sub-$600 RockShox Domain and Psylo Forks
43045 views
[UPDATED] Final Elite XC Results & Overall Standings from the Mairiporã XC World Cup 2024
42231 views
Tree Root Pierces Harriet Harnden's Foot at Round 1 of the British National Downhill Series
39631 views
Pinkbike's DH Fantasy League: Get Your Team On The Line - Fort William is in TWO WEEKS!
35281 views
Review: Race Face's Era Chainring Uses Steel, Carbon, & Aluminum
28467 views
First Ride: Fox's New Transfer Dropper Post - Adjustable Travel, Up to 240mm of Drop
27099 views
Industry Digest: Crowd Funding 36" eBikes, Canfield Bikes' Relocation, Recalls & More
26851 views
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup

98 Comments
  • 6 0
 LMAO, the bicycle industry is such a funny one ! I get a good laugh at watching the big ones feeding you guys with that marketing merchandise with a high tech name & good looking sticker on !

By the first look I had off the patent claims, I beleive they're claiming the whole pivot arrangement of the suspension as the claim, not just the concentric rear pivot.

If you guys feel like reading, here's the patent : www.freepatentsonline.com/7837213.pdf

Maybe some true bicycle interested guys can read it all and sum it up for the other guys.
  • 3 0
 Here's Weagle's Patent too : www.freepatentsonline.com/7717212.pdf
  • 2 0
 Thaks for the links! I found a couple patent forms but not that one. Did you notice this: mombat.org/Crestone.htm The desing has been around for a while.
  • 6 0
 "LMAO, the bicycle industry is such a funny one ! I get a good laugh at watching the big ones feeding you guys with that marketing merchandise with a high tech name & good looking sticker on !"

This. Bike industry as a whole is terrible with its gimicky marketing and pseudo-technical branding. Its stupid how out of hand it is and how people buy into the hype. Just kind of funny how everyone gets on and starts downing the Kool-aid. Guess it just boils down to the bottom line.
  • 1 0
 Couldn't agree more! (and I'm a bike designer)
  • 2 0
 Not saying it isn't a smart financial move to patent a design tho! As generally people will pay more for a big name linkage, and other companies will often pay licencing fees.

I've just read through the claims of the DW patent (P19 of patent, numbered 1 to 50 or something like that for those who want to read through them). By my reading (I'm no patent lawyer mind you), he has the concentric pivot around the rear axle pretty well covered for all design aspects... except perhaps having a floating shock (could be there as i just scrolled through it quickly).

The Trek Patent seems to only cover the system using a floating shock design (shock attached between rocker and chainstay, but not attached to front triangle directly). So the patents are different... although some claims get pretty close to one another, and the final performance can be identicle (if pivots and linkage geometry are matched for all suspension characteristics including leverage curve)... we shall see if they decide to play nice.
  • 13 3
 holy marketing bull shit
  • 3 2
 Ride a trek, then come talk.
  • 3 0
 sounds like buyer reassurance to me... also by your post above about fsr vs. apb, i will definitely believe your opinion Wink if your going spit facts, do your research first, then come talk.
  • 1 2
 research is one thing, riding experience is another.

Dyno results (that are not publically availible) do not equal reality. Your "research" is based off of the opinions of others. If you did your "research" you would see that the brake has no effect upoun suspension characteristics of an trek full floater link thanks to an ABP.

A patent is a couple grand to file. You think trek is going to spend that on something for marketing?
  • 3 0
 there are a lot of suspension designs out there that do the same thing, or you can just add a floating brake. but who cares, braking effecting suspension is not as important as axle path, anti squat, and frame stiffness. where is there info/technology on that stuff. again it is marketing bull shit. Trek spent the money on the patent because it sells there bikes, because it backs there marketing not because it is a ground braking suspension design. i have done my own research, and not just looking up info from treks page and cut and pasting it like you and all the magazine articles.
  • 1 0
 Then post some of this research. Theres no hard data for anything, just how a bike feels and fits you as a rider.
  • 1 0
 haha, people on Pinkbike make me laugh.
  • 1 0
 great rebuttle. you still want to post up some of that research of yours? Cuz im sure alot of us are waiting to see it.
  • 5 1
 the fsr patent ends in 2012 i believe, then everyone can use the real thing, rather than Trek's "close as we can get" solution.
  • 3 20
flag rffr (Nov 23, 2010 at 14:00) (Below Threshold)
 Close as we can get? Uhhh, you do realize that fsr is one of the most inefficient pedal platforms around... and have always been. FSR doesn't even compare to ABP.
  • 5 1
 @Mike Levy: How those this compare or intervere with the pattent from Dave Weagle?
  • 4 0
 I read that the Patents will co-exist as they have slight differences and were created "independantly of each other". I do not know exactly what makes them different enough to secure their own patents. I would be interested to know more.
  • 1 1
 the only difference is that the chainstay is on the outside of the seatstay whereas the split-pivot the seatstay is on the outside. That's pretty piss weak of trek to pull a move like that if you ask me but at least they wont have to pay royalties.
  • 1 1
 www.bergamont.de/Technik.aspx?bbdID=40

that's under dw's split pivot patent, chain stay is on the outside.
  • 1 1
 well, your link doesn't work, bergamont bicycles is some german bike company I never heard of too. but you're right i just checked out the dixon and the dexter and the chainstay was on the outside. my original comment was based on the wilson where the seatstay is on the outside. so the REAL question is how in the hell did trek snake a patent on the split pivot and what is the real difference?
  • 1 0
 there was a blog on here about it, and it said that its under the dw patent. ill look it up.
  • 1 0
 okay admittedly i cant find the right blog right now, but should also point out, that on the wilson sp, the arm that dictates the wheel path is called the chain stay right? well on the 2011 wilson the chain stay is on the out side, but where most get confused is to call the other bar the seat stay where in the wilson case it is in fact a "link"
  • 1 1
 I think you're confused, the seatstay is the bar that goes from the axle to behind the seattube. the chainstay is the bottom bar. the wilson is in fact a linkage driven single pivot with a split pivot rear end and the seat stay is the one connected to the frame and thus it dictates the wheelpath. maybe that's why it is on the outside whereas the dixon and dexter have the chainstay on the outside, because they are connected to the frame and dictate the wheelpath. I can't tell from the pictures above but maybe trek put the stays on the opposite way, where the main bar is on the inside instead?
  • 1 1
 the bar that dictates the axlepath is dubbed the chainstay as in simple terms it hold the wheel out back, just because the 'seat stay' (no longer called a seat stay, but in fact a 'link') is below the 'chainstay' does not make it the chainstay since it does not have any bearing on the axle path, where as in fact drives the shock though a second link.

so in reality only hardtails really have chain and seat stays (debatable whether virtual pivot point frames have chain/seat stays) and link driven single pivots only have a chainstay and two links. no seat stay at all. (think morewook makulu, its the same link but just with the link pivots in different places)

so the chainstay IS on the outside of the link, same at the trek and bergamont
  • 1 2
 actually no, that is incorrect
  • 1 0
 please explain.
  • 1 0
 Patent to protect their investment is good, patent to piss off people who have come up with similar idea not so good however a patent to be paid and used by other companies as Trek can't sell all the bikes in the world, now that would really be good then FSR patent usage would drop like a stone.
  • 6 2
 great. another way for TREK to increase the price of their bikes. (Because they weren't that expensive to begin with.)
  • 3 1
 buy a different brand then. Azonic frames are gold for the money.
  • 1 1
 i ride an azonic:P it is what you pay
  • 1 0
 I rode two Azonics, and broke both of the POS's! Never trust them again!
  • 1 0
 yeah that was what i ment, cheap bike = shitty bike
  • 1 0
 Exactly, you buy a cheap bike, and it may pedal greatly due to this patented suspension, but hen it's not very ridable, when some other part of it breaks... lol
  • 2 2
 Mikelevy-


Wow I think I struck a nerve, did I offend you? Is it maybe cause you test Trek's products and they pay your bills so you have it implanted in your big head what they want you to think. Before you make a big stink about things next time do some research before you sit here and waste our time with your bullshit about "It isn't like the small guys are coming out with new and ground breaking designs"- Really? Come on mike give me a break. Go ride or get laid or do whatever it is you have to do cause you obviously have some built up anger.
  • 5 1
 There was no anger in that post, none at all. I test Trek products, along with everyone elses - I fail to see your point. The point of my post though was to say that while they may be making some great stuff, small companies are not exactly coming out with ground breaking designs left, right, and center. Neither are a lot of bigger companies, but I've seen much more innovation from the big guys. Pushing the limits with materials, manufacturing techniques, testing, design ect... In the end it isn't even about the size of a company in my books, it's about the final product and the people behind it. The small rider owned companies do some great stuff, but I don't agree when I read the hate about the big guys. The people at Trek are riders, just like the people at Specialized, Giant, and other large companies - they are in the business because they love to ride, just like the people at smaller companies. They have just as much "soul" for the sport as anyone else. Don't forget that.
  • 1 4
 I never said they were coming out with new stuff left, right ,center. Read It for me a couple more times. When ever in my comment was the word "hate" used? Now you're just putting words in my mouth and I'm sorry that you're so ignorant to see my point, not everyone gets one another.
  • 3 1
 "conforming to the bullshit that big corporate companies feed you"
"sending there work overseas to be performed by under paid starving Korean children."

Sounds like hate to me, but you're right, you didn't actually use the word "hate". Sorry for being ignorant. I wonder though, do you still have that Specialized P3 dirt jump bike, or are you rocking a handmade in the U.S. bike now?
  • 1 0
 I'm rocking a P3 but my Scratch Air is on it's way Smile
  • 1 2
 Both
  • 2 4
 both Dave Weagle's Split-Pivot design and this new ABP use concentric dropout pivots. The difference is that on Weagle's design, the chainstays are on the right side and the seatstays are on the left when looking forward. On the ABP design the seatstays are both on the inside of the chainstays.
  • 5 0
 www.sicklines.com/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/16580/size/big you should take a look to the bikes before sayin some things like that
  • 1 0
 I stand corrected. Now I'm just confused as to what the difference is. I pulled my info from the Split-pivot website (www.split-pivot.com/performance.html) and from the Trek website
  • 2 0
 isn´t this the same ?

www.bergamont.de/Technik.aspx?bbdID=40
  • 1 0
 Dont know if its exactly the same......might be, but it does not violate a U.S. patent.
  • 1 0
 that is "split pivot" which is dave weagles patent, some how, still dont understand how, but its different to trek's abp.....
  • 2 0
 idiot can patent shit. but can't send a poster..........
  • 1 0
 i actually just got my poster today...
  • 3 0
 Dw. Link
  • 1 0
 Keep pump'n out the good stuff Waterloo. In the meantime, I'm still rock'n a hardtail.
  • 1 0
 since when did everyone on pinkbike with an opinion become a mechanical engineer?
  • 2 5
 Treks are mass produced garbage. Try not conforming to the bullshit that big corporate companies feed you and support the smaller companies out there that are actually designing there own setups without stealing from one another and changing it slightly so they can call it there own. the companies that still make there frames by hand instead of sending there work overseas to be performed by under paid starving Korean children.
  • 4 1
 v-dub,

"designing there own setups without stealing from one another and changing it slightly so they can call it there own" - Really? Look at what's out there and try again. It isn't like the small guys are coming out with new and ground breaking designs, and it certainly isn't as if the majority of them aren't having their frames made overseas, there is nothing wrong with that! Nothing against the smaller guys, but I don't see how you can argue that a lot of the bigger companies final product isn't more polished, uses nicer hardware, and simply has more technology put into it. Either way, smaller US based manufacturers are putting out some great stuff, just like people who send their stuff overseas. And you know what, people at those big companies are every bit as much riders as people at smaller "rider owned" operations.
  • 1 0
 I don't disagree with you, Mike, but the claims of some of the big boys that they have 'created' a 'ground breaking new design' every time they simply tweak something already out there has to be seen for what it is - big heaps of marketing bull shit! (and I am guilty as charged - I've shoveled it). The full floater has been around for years (see float link by fusion) so nothing new there - so why call it new?
  • 1 0
 I bet you feel silly now! Oh wait...
  • 1 0
 Does this affect Devinci's new design in the US??
  • 1 1
 Yeah wouldn't Weagles Patent and this one be exactly the same??
  • 1 0
 It may be the same desing(practically), but if company one claims to be patenting it for it does "THIS", and company two claims it does "THAT", they are awarded their different patents... BUT as soon as company one claims their design does "THIS" and "THAT", then they are in violation of company two's patent...


All just a buncha drama in the end... Rolleyes

Just my 2 cents
Below threshold threads are hidden







Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.098561
Mobile Version of Website