PDA

View Full Version : Is New or Old products?


168boy
2012.01.14, 01:47 AM
http://bbs.rc-evo.com/data/attachment/forum/201112/07/135410zhushcch4b59zuta.jpgBetter or just colour diff?

168boy
2012.01.14, 01:50 AM
http://bbs.rc-evo.com/data/attachment/forum/201112/07/1353571uualq1o14ftq46y.jpg

168boy
2012.01.14, 01:51 AM
http://bbs.rc-evo.com/data/attachment/forum/201112/07/1346551xrzvw6cf1xgzzlu.jpg

168boy
2012.01.14, 01:52 AM
http://bbs.rc-evo.com/data/attachment/forum/201111/16/135233og2v1a5ay3opaadp.jpg

168boy
2012.01.14, 01:54 AM
http://bbs.rc-evo.com/data/attachment/forum/201112/21/1219362o7c12x1gdnexx1e.jpg

168boy
2012.01.14, 02:08 AM
Are they just re-spray red to some brand to make personal like?

unearthed name
2012.01.14, 02:36 AM
Pn dps and center shock + reflex racing top body mount? I'm not impressed x-power.

josyskunk
2012.01.14, 02:47 AM
This is pure cheating.:mad: X - power come on. :mad: copying design from PN and Reflex won't win any customer.

lfisminiz
2012.01.14, 09:48 AM
Buy the REAL thing....PN and Reflex parts, not someone copying someone elses parts.;):mad:

bermbuster
2012.01.14, 10:08 AM
Buy the REAL thing....PN and Reflex parts, not someone copying someone elses parts.;):mad:

well said.....:cool:

bermbuster
2012.01.14, 10:10 AM
http://bbs.rc-evo.com/data/attachment/forum/201112/07/1353571uualq1o14ftq46y.jpg

If your gonna copy the parts....at least learn how to put them together correctly.....nice antenna routing:eek:

mikedw
2012.01.14, 10:15 AM
Isn't every parts maker just copying Kyosho? There are lots of parts that look the same as some other guys part, colour difference was enough of a difference before. More competition isn't a bad thing. If there is a real legal issue, it will be taken care of by over payed lawyers behind closed doors. Copying is nothing new and will go on.

yasuji
2012.01.14, 11:05 AM
Isn't every parts maker just copying Kyosho? There are lots of parts that look the same as some other guys part, colour difference was enough of a difference before. More competition isn't a bad thing. If there is a real legal issue, it will be taken care of by over payed lawyers behind closed doors. Copying is nothing new and will go on.

in recent times there has not been many parts that look identical...and yes there are many parts that have the same name and serve the same purpose, but when you look at them there is a definite physical difference!
in this case these parts are, at a glance ,in pics, visually identical to the pn parts ...
we all like more competition.... and we welcome it....the more the merrier!
use the concept....but dont change the color and pass it off as products that you designed

cowboysir
2012.01.14, 11:47 AM
There is a certain truth to "copying" Kyosho parts that don't require improvement (other than the improved materials) but the reality is that pn, qtec and reflex have put development time into their hop up parts and have some race experience to prove their equipment shows an improvement over stock/oem kyosho parts.

It seems to me that xpowers claims of improved materials and different anodizing doesn't hold much weight as an improvement in my view.

Differences in alloy quality at this scale has to be a negligible improvement.

It's red anodizing....whoopee-doo.

Now if they were 20% cheaper and had realistic shipping I might consider it but I don't see myself wasting my efforts on knockoffs for the same price

mikedw
2012.01.14, 11:48 AM
I guess that depends on perception of what is identical. I see three easy to spot differences; stainless screws, different rear cross bar and colour. I don't use either product and have no loyalty to either company. They both have multiple products that I'm not going to compare.
What is many? I see parts by someone called Ximpact and all their parts seem pretty identical to others and are pretty recent.
PN has a lot of races so, I guess the red parts will be banned from those races.
I think Emu should be upset as they stole his tower bar colour.

Chicken Little
2012.01.14, 11:49 AM
While I do not condone certain practices, I am open to seeing other companies offering products at a lower cost. It brings in more customers into the hobby keeping it attainable not only to the avid racers but also for the occasional racers or newcomer into the hobby.

B-main
2012.01.14, 12:09 PM
look at there prices the real thing is cheaper. but i do like the color

arch2b
2012.01.14, 08:14 PM
because i've curious about how one can apply the logic presented in other situations, please consider this scenario;

kyosho has designed a plastic and cf h plate specifically for their product. x, y and z manufacturers produce 99% identical design in alternate materials with the express opinion that its a performance enhancement. we can all acknowledge this fact exists.

extrapolate this further to say, a motor mount in which 99% is identical to another product but the material has changed again, with the express opinion that it is a performance enhancement. logic tells me this is all one in the same despite the obvious nuances. if x, y and z are not called out for copyright infringement the whole argument is a bit tainted. i'm not saying i would be happy about it happening to me but at the same time, if i owned x, and already produce parts 99% identical to OEM with minute changes and material changes, how can i really point fingers?

again, take tires for example. kyosho has designed specific tire styles of both square and round edges with a designed inner lip to the back. x, y, and z manufacturers produce the products that are again 99.5% identical with variations in material. the specific changes to edge treatment and inner lip are designs produced by kyosho before any other manufacturer for the same product so again, how could i as owner of x, point fingers?

you can nit pick about the differences between tires or h plate and parts with obviously more development put into them such as motor mounts but the core issue remains the same irregardless.

also, the claim of enhancement or improvement is subjective and few manufacturers have any statistical data proving it. some provide data such as benchmarking for specific items but as a whole, it's not something that anyone is doing in a quantifiable manner. for me to suggest z is less than forthright for not doing so is putting myself in the same jeopardy as well.

this is just something to think about rationally, consider and discuss. i am in no way consenting to anything or anyone but simply want to push the discussion in a more rational manner that looks at the subject with a greater scope vs. horse blinders.

thoughts?

unearthed name
2012.01.14, 08:56 PM
Well for me i think is that a manufacturer has the right to defend their design. That is clear.

Question however arise when you try to improve a product with limited design leg room. T-plate and tire for example will always be the same it's a material shaped like a t with 4 holes on it. Same with tires.

For those products i can accept that they copy the design although with different materials or color.

However for things like motor mount, dps, front shock. I think it's fair to say that it's unethical to just copy it, make it from different materials and then put your brand on it.

Maybe x-power need to give pn some money so they can use pn's design.

Just my 0.02$

arch2b
2012.01.14, 09:08 PM
thats not applying the logic consistently though. it gives one argument clearly more weight simply because the added complexity. i can guarantee you kyosho paid someone to come up with the standard t plate template and production design which requires casting molds, etc. all are development costs that kyosho bore. the lip on the back of the tire is specific to the wheel kyosho designed. xmods for example did their own thing as an example of thier not being one way to do it and the specificity to the product in the deign. that lip is a design feature that carries the same weight as milling louvers into an appendage to a mount. you can't simply pick and choose with the claim of copyright infringement and dismiss all others. logically, copying a motor mount is as grievous as copying a tire design. obviously, you feel less injured about a tire vs. a motor mount but it's still apples to apples.

and i agree completely, any manufacturer has a right to protect their brand and product and frankly should, be it x, y or z.

bermbuster
2012.01.14, 10:18 PM
I want to use the motor pod as an example. Kyosho is the originator. The stock pod is plastic. You must use shims to adjust mesh and everything snaps together. Not the best because it will wear out from changing t plates, motor heat,swaps and lubrication. Not to mention your limited to what Disc damper/top shock you can use.
Now PN comes along and makes a pod that is easy to adjust mesh (requires the use of a motor can with tapped holes), It is aluminum (strong, lightweight, dissipates heat) Along with the pod they make a series of motors that have tapped holes. Time passes and Kyosho releases an aluminum motor pod that cradles the motor (no mounting holes) and snaps together.
What I see is the manufacturer is trying to appeal to a different way of doing things. They did not copy the PN design. Im not sure who made the first aftermarket pod but even the other aftermarket companies use there own designs.
Now PN keeps evolving the pod by making components more adjustable.
Doing these upgrades cost money. Not to mention the initial design.
Now along comes brand x they most likely sent a PN pod to a company who reverse engineered it and produces it for them. There cost to do this was minimal. This is where the word ETHICAL comes to mind.

[post copied to relevant thread in whole. this post edited to remain on topic.]

arch2b
2012.01.14, 10:26 PM
PLEASE do not carry over a conversation that was closed from another thread. that will simply end in this one being closed as well.

please keep on topic. ethics was not part of the equation:) that is a separate issue all together.

byebye
2012.01.15, 12:07 AM
I like what you've posted here arch2b:D

Its hard to swallow for some diehard fans.

I'd like to see more alternatives to current maufacturers and more locally produced parts.

Kris
because i've curious about how one can apply the logic presented in other situations, please consider this scenario;

kyosho has designed a plastic and cf h plate specifically for their product. x, y and z manufacturers produce 99% identical design in alternate materials with the express opinion that its a performance enhancement. we can all acknowledge this fact exists.

extrapolate this further to say, a motor mount in which 99% is identical to another product but the material has changed again, with the express opinion that it is a performance enhancement. logic tells me this is all one in the same despite the obvious nuances. if x, y and z are not called out for copyright infringement the whole argument is a bit tainted. i'm not saying i would be happy about it happening to me but at the same time, if i owned x, and already produce parts 99% identical to OEM with minute changes and material changes, how can i really point fingers?

again, take tires for example. kyosho has designed specific tire styles of both square and round edges with a designed inner lip to the back. x, y, and z manufacturers produce the products that are again 99.5% identical with variations in material. the specific changes to edge treatment and inner lip are designs produced by kyosho before any other manufacturer for the same product so again, how could i as owner of x, point fingers?

you can nit pick about the differences between tires or h plate and parts with obviously more development put into them such as motor mounts but the core issue remains the same irregardless.

also, the claim of enhancement or improvement is subjective and few manufacturers have any statistical data proving it. some provide data such as benchmarking for specific items but as a whole, it's not something that anyone is doing in a quantifiable manner. for me to suggest z is less than forthright for not doing so is putting myself in the same jeopardy as well.

this is just something to think about rationally, consider and discuss. i am in no way consenting to anything or anyone but simply want to push the discussion in a more rational manner that looks at the subject with a greater scope vs. horse blinders.

thoughts?

bermbuster
2012.01.15, 03:33 AM
I like what you've posted here arch2b:D

Its hard to swallow for some diehard fans.

I'd like to see more alternatives to current maufacturers and more locally produced parts.

Kris

I know your American and you dont mean products produced in Israel...unless your looking for a Desert Eagle or an Uzi.....

American machine shops cannot compete against 3rd world countries...
Its sad but true......

yasuji
2012.01.15, 12:49 PM
arch what you r talking about is the mounting/ adapting....these are up-grade parts... not its own car.... pn makes option parts for the mini-z there for it must adapt to the mini-z is some way
the way that it mounts is not the the process in question here it is a given if you couldn't utilize the way that it mounts nothing would ever be made
visual similarity's between a mzw17-20 and the rsr06 is the groove to adapt to the kyosho wheel and its black!thats not applying the logic consistently though. it gives one argument clearly more weight simply because the added complexity. i can guarantee you kyosho paid someone to come up with the standard t plate template and production design which requires casting molds, etc. all are development costs that kyosho bore. the lip on the back of the tire is specific to the wheel kyosho designed. xmods for example did their own thing as an example of thier not being one way to do it and the specificity to the product in the deign. that lip is a design feature that carries the same weight as milling louvers into an appendage to a mount. you can't simply pick and choose with the claim of copyright infringement and dismiss all others. logically, copying a motor mount is as grievous as copying a tire design. obviously, you feel less injured about a tire vs. a motor mount but it's still apples to apples.

and i agree completely, any manufacturer has a right to protect their brand and product and frankly should, be it x, y or z.

arch2b
2012.01.15, 01:01 PM
makes no differenece if it's an h plate or differential. if your copying an oem part with specific design aspects that makes it unique to the oem manuf., the problem remains the same. you can make all kinds of points toward the use, complexity, research and design and again, makes no difference. copy is copy, large, small, significant, insignificant.

if you want to push the h plate as a point of discussion i'll be happy to oblige. mounting points is not the issue at hand. it's copying unique design aspects which is at the hear of the copying issue. there have been others whom have made unique h plate designs that did not resemble the standard h plate kyosho produces. this is what makes them unique thus avoid the copying issue. the mounting always remains the same, the shape and style of the plate must be unique.
changing the material to adjust performance which seems to be discounted by some, is also the same reply presented for h plates. how does this work logically? why is this accepted for one and not another? i just fail to see the rational approach when it's applied arbitrarily.

to bring this back around to tires, kyosho has several unique design aspects such as the rounded profile and flat profile. they also have lettering on the sidewall on some. this was all designed by kyosho for the mini-z tire product. they paid the outlying development and production costs. a-z are making tires with various combinations of these same design aspects. all include the unique rear lip. again, why is the same logic not applied to this product as others? they all involve research and development, production costs born by the original manuf. tire patterning is a a design feature that indeed makes a tire unique. kyosho has pattering but x, y, and z utilize different patterning for a multitude of reasons, not excluding the desire to not reproduce and OEM design feature. patterning happens on a fraction of tires however so it cannot be the response to the tire issue in whole but an example of where x, y, or z made a design change. 99% of every slick however is in question.

yasuji
2012.01.15, 01:10 PM
makes no differenece if it's an h plate or differential. if your copying an oem part with specific design aspects that makes it unique to the oem manuf., the problem remains the same. you can make all kinds of points toward the use, complexity, research and design and again, makes no difference. copy is copy, large, small, significant, insignificant.

if you want to push the h plate as a point of discussion i'll be happy to oblige. mounting points is not the issue at hand. it's copying unique design aspects which is at the hear of the copying issue. there have been others whom have made unique h plate designs that did not resemble the standard h plate kyosho produces. this is what makes them unique thus avoid the copying issue. the mounting always remains the same, the shape and style of the plate must be unique.
changing the material to adjust performance which seems to be discounted by some, is also the same reply presented for h plates. how does this work logically? why is this accepted for one and not another? i just fail to see the rational approach when it's applied arbitrarily.

i agree that some tplates are somewhat the same as others ....but this is a mute point as it is not an original kyosho part and was pipped from some other car/ product

arch2b
2012.01.15, 01:14 PM
how is it a mute point? copying kyosho is just a relevant as copying x, y or z? be it oem, or upgrade. copy = copy if you look at it logically.

kyosho designed the h plate for the mini-z. has nothing to do with being the originator of the h plate concept and design. they designed and produced a part specifically for their product that is replicated to 99% identical by everyone else.

yasuji
2012.01.15, 01:16 PM
i agree that some tplates are somewhat the same as others ....but this is a mute point as it is not an original kyosho part and was pipped from some other car/ product

the bottom line is that not many things in our life time is going to be original.... it will always be a dirivitive of something else...

arch2b
2012.01.15, 01:19 PM
exactly the point some others have made in response to the argument :) again, why is it accepted for this? logicially, that doesn't make sense to allow/accept it for some parts and not others.

the real crux of the issue is, what is the min. design change required to satisfy the question? that also seems to be applied unevenly. for the record, changing materials is not enough to convince me.

yasuji
2012.01.15, 01:23 PM
how is it a mute point? copying kyosho is just a relevant as copying x, y or z? be it oem, or upgrade. copy = copy if you look at it logically.

kyosho designed the h plate for the mini-z. has nothing to do with being the originator of the h plate concept and design. they designed and produced a part specifically for their product that is replicated to 99% identical by everyone else.


go back farther..kyosho did not design the h plate
in your arguement there should have never been any progress made on the first wheel ever made

yasuji
2012.01.15, 01:31 PM
exactly the point some others have made in response to the argument :) again, why is it accepted for this? logicially, that doesn't make sense to allow/accept it for some parts and not others.

the real crux of the issue is, what is the min. design change required to satisfy the question? that also seems to be applied unevenly. for the record, changing materials is not enough to convince me.

imo...it is not an acceptance of a certain part or the other...it is a common sence understanding..... that any given part has its limitations.... i cannot adapt my tamtech h plate to my mini-z with out first making it work or adapters to make it work

arch2b
2012.01.15, 01:44 PM
again, how does this apply to the discussion of copyright? the initial design must be altered to a degree to make it unique. it can easily be argued that 90% of h plates and maybe 70% of tires do not meet this standard. this is just using tires and h plates for examples. if you extrapolate this to the full gamut of mini-z parts you can see where this tack in response becomes even more diluted.

whats being presented here is that item a is too similar to item b and what constitutes acceptable design change to make them each unique. for h plates and tires, the change of material seems to be satisfactory however does not seem to be accepted for other items. rationally, this cannot be so. common sense tells you if they look identical, they are. you cannot use common sense as a response to both support and discount a claim of copying.

what is the min. design change that is acceptable to make something unique? why must z prove it's value as an improvement when a-y does not for other parts? again, it's the imbalance of logic that i'm trying to address in response to the discussion taking place elsewhere.

to clarify, i am not supporting x, y or z. i am not making excuses for x, y or z. i am simply addressing the logic of discussion taking place as i find it curious.

yasuji
2012.01.15, 01:49 PM
again, how does this apply to the discussion of copyright? the initial design must be altered to a degree to make it unique. it can easily be argued that 90% of h plates and maybe 70% of tires do not meet this standard. this is just using tires and h plates for examples. if you extrapolate this to the full gamut of mini-z parts you can see where this tack in response becomes even more diluted.

whats being presented here is that item a is too similar to item b and what constitutes acceptable design change to make them each unique. for h plates and tires, the change of material seems to be satisfactory however does not seem to be accepted for other items. rationally, this cannot be so. common sense tells you if they look identical, they are. you cannot use common sense as a response to both support and discount a claim of copying.

what is the min. design change that is acceptable to make something unique? why must z prove it's value as an improvement when a-y does not for other parts? again, it's the imbalance of logic that i'm trying to address in response to the discussion taking place elsewhere.

im trying to n be biased as a pn driver but i must use this as an example
looking at the mr02 tplate kit from kyosho and pn there is a obvious visual difference between the kits being made of carbon fiber

bermbuster
2012.01.15, 01:52 PM
In the Hobby sport of RC upgrades are the accepted norm. Back in the day Duratrax (Tower) would aggressively pursue kopykats....
What this did was actually hurt sales....Racers want upgrades hop ups and freedom of choice....
If you only had Kyosho and Kyosho hop ups Mini Z would be very small compared to what is today.

arch2b
2012.01.15, 01:54 PM
i appreciate the effort, i know it's sincere. i use x, y, and z as an effort to also remain unbiased and generic in reference.

in this particular case, i would agree. PN tends to keep a curvature to the stem from mounting bar to mounting bar. as a whole for the industry, i would not agree yet you do not see the same outpouring of emotion or discussion.

keeping with the specific example of t plate, PN MR3045. how is this different from the design of kyosho MZW410? there are variations in thickness, inclusion, exclusion of identifying nothces, etc. but the overall design seems identical. would changing the thickness be acceptable for a design change to an h plate? would this not also then be acceptable to a motor pod in which a specific element is changed in thickness but remains visibly identical? thoughts?

bermbuster
2012.01.15, 02:00 PM
maybe we should look at things from another angle....
what does it take to make a hop up part?
how much actual work goes into it and how much does it cost?

Lets pick a part as an example.....
1. design
2. prototype
3. testing
4. manufacturing
5. packaging
6. marketing

arch2b
2012.01.15, 02:01 PM
In the Hobby sport of RC upgrades are the accepted norm. Back in the day Duratrax (Tower) would aggressively pursue kopykats....
What this did was actually hurt sales....Racers want upgrades hop ups and freedom of choice....
If you only had Kyosho and Kyosho hop ups Mini Z would be very small compared to what is today.

i could not agree more. it is the acceptance and forward momentum of aftermarket manuf. that has kept mini-z alive for 10 plus years. if all we had were kyosho and megatech (if anyone remembers them), it would have died 6 plus years ago.

arch2b
2012.01.15, 02:02 PM
maybe we should look at things from another angle....
what does it take to make a hop up part?
how much actual work goes into it and how much does it cost?

Lets pick a part as an example.....
1. design
2. prototype
3. testing
4. manufacturing
5. packaging
6. marketing

also a very good topic for discussion which i support fully. it does not however define the issue of copyright as it's already covered in my examples put forth.

yasuji
2012.01.15, 02:05 PM
i appreciate the effort, i know it's sincere. i use x, y, and z as an effort to also remain unbiased and generic in reference.

in this particular case, i would agree. PN tends to keep a curvature to the stem from mounting bar to mounting bar. as a whole for the industry, i would not agree yet you do not see the same outpouring of emotion or discussion.

keeping with the specific example of t plate, PN MR3045. how is this different from the design of kyosho MZW410? there are variations in thickness, inclusion, exclusion of identifying nothces, etc. but the overall design seems identical. would changing the thickness be acceptable for a design change to an h plate? would this not also then be acceptable to a motor pod in which a specific element is changed in thickness but remains visibly identical? thoughts?

that is a good question... to me i can see the visual difference between the 2 but others may not.... however is there any otherway way make this peice
the number 5 is as wide as it can be however the # 4-2 is of a different shape

arch2b
2012.01.15, 02:09 PM
in all seriousness, i know this issue has brought about some very serious emotions and feelings as a result. i want to stress that i am not condoning any practice by any party, simply discussing the logic behind the issue. i don't want there to be any confusion here on this as until i saw the previous thread, i had no idea the issue existed. i personally not followed product development of say, z, nor had seen images of some of their product line. ignorance is not an excuse to the law but in this case i simply didn't know there was an issue until posted here. i like to think i'm in the loop of mini-z world but some things escape even me:p

thank you to those whom have taken the time to respond as well. we may not agree on everything but i appreciate the time and effort and willingness to contribute to the discussion.

arch2b
2012.01.15, 02:10 PM
sure there is. others have included a gap within the center leg for various stiffness of h plates. some use 'x' criss cross. there are other ways.

yasuji
2012.01.15, 02:18 PM
sure there is. others have included a gap within the center leg for various stiffness of h plates. some use 'x' criss cross. there are other ways.

i undertand ur point the number 5 tplate is the only tplate from that series that resembles the kyosho t plate

arch2b
2012.01.15, 02:29 PM
that is the first one i quickly pulled from easily referenced mr-03 section. the odds of finding more when closely reviewing all parts from begining to end will increase. this was simply 1 i was able to identify within 2 minutes of looking. i don't think one needs to look too long to find more example from any manuf. not singling out any one manuf., i believe this to be the case for nearly all of them.

bermbuster
2012.01.15, 02:31 PM
in all seriousness, i know this issue has brought about some very serious emotions and feelings as a result. i want to stress that i am not condoning any practice by any party, simply discussing the logic behind the issue. i don't want there to be any confusion here on this as until i saw the previous thread, i had no idea the issue existed. i personally not followed product development of say, z, nor had seen images of some of their product line. ignorance is not an excuse to the law but in this case i simply didn't know there was an issue until posted here. i like to think i'm in the loop of mini-z world but some things escape even me:p

thank you to those whom have taken the time to respond as well. we may not agree on everything but i appreciate the time and effort and willingness to contribute to the discussion.
As an adult who works in an industry where Johnny come lately kopykats is rampant this really hits home for me. I would just hate to see PN or any other reputable part manufacturer stop making parts or advancements for us.
The flip side to this is in order to protect future investments you might see companies patenting, trademarking and copyrighting everything they make. Ultimately our pockets will foot the bill....

yasuji
2012.01.15, 02:42 PM
that is the first one i quickly pulled from easily referenced mr-03 section. the odds of finding more when closely reviewing all parts from begining to end will increase. this was simply 1 i was able to identify within 2 minutes of looking. i don't think one needs to look too long to find more example from any manuf. not singling out any one manuf., i believe this to be the case for nearly all of them.

im thinking you r right... however some of it is in what works...the derivative of what works...no matter how u change it it will still look the same in over 50 % of the t plate

yasuji
2012.01.15, 02:49 PM
“derivative work” is a work based upon one or more pre-existing works,

When does derivative-work copyright exist?

For copyright protection to attach to a later, allegedly derivative work, it must display some originality of its own. It cannot be a rote, uncreative variation on the earlier, underlying work. The latter work must contain sufficient new expression, over and above that embodied in the earlier work for the latter work to satisfy copyright law’s requirement of originality.
i read this earlier... when i think of this i think about the motor pod the diff outer plates and gears....if you apply this to the mini-z directly there are many in the red.... if u apply this to rc in general kyosho is in the red.... and so on and so forth up un tilll the very first..

arch2b
2012.01.15, 02:50 PM
agreed, but again, what is the min. acceptable design change to make it unique? that is one of the key points to the discussion. you can make a t plate in any number of design fashions. whether or not they work is irrelevant to the issue of copying.

is moving a screw point enough? is changing material enough? you cannot ask that improvement be proven clearly as nearly all of manuf. do not do so. you cannot ask that it be clearly explained at all times either as nearly all of the manuf. do not include specific product descriptions beyond the simple title and main function of the item. if design improvement is fundamentally subjective in nature (without the presence of statistical data backing the claim), how do you go about quantifying it?

yasuji
2012.01.15, 03:08 PM
agreed, but again, what is the min. acceptable design change to make it unique? that is one of the key points to the discussion. you can make a t plate in any number of design fashions. whether or not they work is irrelevant to the issue of copying.

is moving a screw point enough? is changing material enough? you cannot ask that improvement be proven clearly as nearly all of manuf. do not do so. you cannot ask that it be clearly explained at all times either as nearly all of the manuf. do not include specific product descriptions beyond the simple title and main function of the item. if design improvement is fundamentally subjective in nature (without the presence of statistical data backing the claim), how do you go about quantifying it?

i think that q would need to be settled by the courts....lol and lotsa $$
im of the school of if it looks like a duck....in mini-z there are clear physical differences between amongst the aftermarket parts the smaller the space the smaller the differences is what i see...

arch2b
2012.01.15, 03:14 PM
i agree. the issue however is the x, y and z all have 'ducks'. it's not an issue that is limited to one item and between q and x. if one calls it as they see it on this issue, one is free to call the rest out on the very same issue. your opening a box i don't think can be appreciated in a rational way. it's a very emotionally charged wind up that has popped and as a result has startled some. taken on it's own, there are merits to a claim however when viewed in context of all products produced by both, it's really not that simple calling the kettle black as it were.

it's my opinion that simply changing the material, for whatever reason is not enough to justify claiming it as unique. it's a copy with declared improvement in performance which is rarely put into quantifiable measures.

arch2b
2012.01.15, 03:16 PM
“derivative work” is a work based upon one or more pre-existing works,

When does derivative-work copyright exist?

For copyright protection to attach to a later, allegedly derivative work, it must display some originality of its own. It cannot be a rote, uncreative variation on the earlier, underlying work. The latter work must contain sufficient new expression, over and above that embodied in the earlier work for the latter work to satisfy copyright law’s requirement of originality.
i read this earlier... when i think of this i think about the motor pod the diff outer plates and gears....if you apply this to the mini-z directly there are many in the red.... if u apply this to rc in general kyosho is in the red.... and so on and so forth up un tilll the very first..

very informative :) thank you for posting this. this supports your assuption following clearly.

arch2b
2012.01.15, 03:19 PM
As an adult who works in an industry where Johnny come lately kopykats is rampant this really hits home for me. I would just hate to see PN or any other reputable part manufacturer stop making parts or advancements for us.
The flip side to this is in order to protect future investments you might see companies patenting, trademarking and copyrighting everything they make. Ultimately our pockets will foot the bill....

i agree. i don't think anyone wants to see x, y or z slow advancements, least of us here on mini-zracer. it's kind of our bread and butter if you were :p

you need not apply for copyright. right from their website...
When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

imxlr8ed
2012.01.15, 10:25 PM
...

Sorry to be so blunt about it but as a designer myself... I despise idea thieves! I know many a story of people who come up with great ideas and get screwd out of what they deserve only to have some jackass with money and lawyers fight to take credit they know they don't deserve. I don't know how they sleep at night.

So if I am just giving one big biased opinion here... sorry! But I'll let my friends on here make that call.

[again, edited to remain on topic. post copied to relevant thread in whole.]

arch2b
2012.01.15, 10:42 PM
ed, lets please not bring the closed discussion over here:) that has run it's course. the discussion presented here is not specifically about any one in particular thus the effort to not use manufac. names and is based on the logic behind the discussion. i don't want to see this discussion closed as a result of beating a dead horse.

as a designer myself as well, i do understand the issue at hand personally however i've not brought that into this discussion.

color01
2012.01.16, 01:37 AM
About your earlier question, arch, I think the line needs to be drawn at "what *can* be changed to make this part different?". This is of course based off the industry standard, which converges over time as a market matures.

For example, in the category of slick tires, you need to fulfill certain criteria:

- Flat (no) tread
- Ridge to fit Mini-Z rims
- Proper width for Mini-Z rims

Once you fulfill those criteria you pretty much have no more room to alter the design, other than diameter (which needs to be optimized!) and sidewall patterning (which also needs to be optimized!). Since there's almost no room for aesthetic design, so as long as a particular tire doesn't have another manuf.'s name on the sidewall you should be pretty much OK. Although the copyright law technically applies to all the second-comers, there's no room for purposefully distinguishing design and so it would be a pretty big **** move to apply it. Slick tires only have one main design that works (by definition, slick), so even if two tires look a lot like the same thing you can't fault anybody for it IMO.

For T-plates, you have different criteria:

- Flat: no tweak
- Notches to fit chassis
- Shape in rear to fit motor mount
- Holes to fit chassis
- Holes to fit motor mount

Once you fulfill these design criteria, again you pretty much have no room to design anything particularly aesthetic and original. I have seen a couple novelly-patterned T-plates and H-plates over the years but generally they have lost out to standard designs, so this is just natural selection at work really. If standard designs are the only ones that "work" then all the players in the market just have to accept that and 1) move on and 2) try to differentiate their product however they can -- materials, etc.

Motor mounts are a different issue though. Here are the criteria for a hole-based (motor needs to have mounting holes) motor mount:

- Holes to attach to T-plate
- Axle holes to hold bearings for rear axle
- Holes/slots/etc. to attach to motor
- Motor sits near stock location left/right, may be moved up/down or fore/aft
- Enough space for suspension travel
- (Optional, really) implement to attach a damping system

Auxiliary features like axle height adjustment, an extra shifting adapter plate, a perpendicular screw adapter mounting system, a single-screw damper arm mounting system, heat sink fins running at a 45-degree angle down the motor adapter plate, etc. etc. are NOT in any way required to match the design constraints required of the job "Mini-Z MR-02/015/03 MM Motor Mount". It would even be OK to see some of these features implemented conceptually in another product later, but here's what's not OK:

- Same dimensions of axle height adjusters
- Same inside radius of damper mounting arm
- Same hole pattern on motor adapter
- Same degree of inclination on heat sink fins
- Same radiused corners on axle-holding bulkheads

Etc. These and more are features of a motor mount that you can prove are not strictly necessary for optimum performance. In fact, you can find many mounts that meet the initial design constraints are capable of equal performance but do not share these unessential design features: Atomic, Reflex, PN. Their existence shows that motor mount designs have not converged yet the same way as tire design and T-plate design have. This lack of convergence means that the "free design" (i.e. not locked down by objective and collective agreement on performance) space of a motor mount is orders of magnitude greater than the "free design" space of a slick tire (the sidewall and profile) or a T-plate (the center section). Because the "free design" space of a motor mount is so much greater than that of a tire or a T-plate, you would expect competing motor mounts to look very different, and of the three largest players in Mini-Z racing (PN, Reflex, Atomic), you can see that they do.

So:

1) For any one manufacturer to put out a new tire that looks like a competitors', we shrug it off because it's generally agreed that tires have to look a certain way to perform, and their constraints dictate a majority of their design.

2) Ditto for T-plates.

3) But for motor mounts? The sheer existence of our many high-performing, different-looking motor mounts is enough to cast serious doubt that one of them is particularly optimized over the others: SO, to copy one of them while claiming "optimization" would be a lie unless you have solid quantitative data to suggest that the design you copied is what all motor mounts will converge to in the next several generations. If you are able to clearly argue that one particular motor mount is superior to its competitors in every unique design aspect, and that there are no alternatives that can do better -- thus, proving design convergence -- then you can successfully argue for a reduction of the "free design" space and make a case for yourself that the copying is justifiable, since, there is "literally nothing else you can do" without hampering the performance, marketability, or other crucial characteristics of your product.

But, of course, we know that motor mount designs are not converging any time in the near future, and so, we can conclude that no person would have any real ground to argue anything upon were they to attempt the exercise in point 3).

168boy
2012.01.16, 02:01 AM
limitation of 7075-T6 treated alloy should be greenish grey, is it? :confused:

arch2b
2012.01.16, 09:24 AM
all good points but again, are not applied consistently.

actual performance of an enhancement modification is irrelevant to the issue of copying. is there more than one way to make an h plate, yes. has history shown us a narrow design path has proven to be successful, your dead right. it does not however have any relevance to the issue of copying an h plate. once it's made, copyright exists plain and simple. you need not prove it works.

again, requiring x to provide solid quantitative data substantiating a claim of optimization would be a good thing however all but maybe reflex racing are guilty of not providing this consistently if at all. it is actually rare to find a manuf. that provide solid quantitative data for optimization of mini-z parts. check around, you don't see a lot of product info on nearly all of the manuf. site beyond product description and part number and or general use. demanding this of one and not all feels a bit unfair to say the least. i must say that RR by far provides the more data on nearly all of it's parts. i think we all understand what should be provided and what we would all like to see however it's not what all are providing to begin with.

and while we all understand a tire is a tire is a tire, to shrug it off again applies the copy issue inconsistently. i think we can all acknowledge the understanding the difference between a tire and a differential for example but the core issue remains the same, how it's applied is what i'm pushing for revelation.

yes, i believe kyosho could enforce copyright on MANY items if it so chooses. i believe MANY aftermarket manuf. could as well and i think you'll find that this indeed does begin to happen, as it rightfully should.

thank you btw for the very concise response, i found it very insighful in adding to the discussion. it's clear there is more emphasis placed on products with higher levels of complexity with clear understanding as to why that is. there is also clearly more emotion on these items of higher design excellence and complexity which i think also drives this. as a designer myself, i would not argue against it. i would argue that to be selective in doing so only complicates the issue. the latest issue may be the last straw so to speak that breaks this whole thing loose. i encourage all manuf. to protect their design work. what i feel is unfair is for everyone to cry foul when in reality, it's a far more common practice than admitted. the shades of grey so to speak differ greatly but the practice is widespread.

skytng
2012.01.16, 10:18 AM
Give others a chance we need these people to promote the hobby. We need more manufacturer in the market. It is always gd to have competitors, in a hobby is there isn't any competitors then the hobby won't grow....

[again, edited post to be on topic. copied post to relevant thread in whole]

arch2b
2012.01.16, 11:04 AM
please do not address the specific issue on the closed discussion elsewhere as it does not pertain to the specific discussion on hand. this is not about PN or Xpower specifically and i would appreciate it if others did not make it so. that discussion has already taken place and has been closed. anyone is free to start a new subject thread if they wish however i would like to keep this one to the the direct issue if copying, irregardless of manufacturer, specific part, etc.

yasuji
2012.01.16, 11:25 AM
i would like to think that it is a basic understanding that a "tire"
tire
n.
2. A hoop of metal or rubber fitted around a wheel.
as it applys to mini-z has been around far longer than mini-z! no matter what not one rc car manufacturer made the "tire"..
there for in my mind i give no thought to seeing tires all over the place in my every day life not once has it crossed my mind that k copied Goodyear....lol

arch2b
2012.01.16, 11:47 AM
i think your vastly simplifying the point....

the mini-z tire is specific to the mini-z wheel in that the tire diameter, thickness, width, treatment of edge profile, interior reverse lip to adapt to wheel design are specific to mini-z wheel product they in turn developed and produced, chassis and autoscale proportion. it's not simply a donut they took off a shelf. as simple as it may be, you cannot deny there was design involved which required outlay of cost. the design effort may be simple and the options limited but exists just the same. that design criteria as realized in the product produced by kyosho is copyrighted. xmod came up with their own wheel design and tire as an example and did not copy kyosho. again, there are other ways to do the same thing.

a definition of 'tire' is also irrelevant by the way. it is not the definition of a tire that is in question but the design of said tire.

you better believe goodyear copyrights/patents and protects their designs.

arch2b
2012.01.16, 12:11 PM
a good place to check out is the copyright faq (http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/). i wasn't aware until reading that you need not apply for copyright but is granted upon producing the item. i still have not read through everything, i'm not a copyright/patent attorney so what i know is from reading specific points and per conversations here and elsewhere :p if anyone else has knowledge to add to this, please do so. :p

yasuji
2012.01.16, 01:23 PM
i think your vastly simplifying the point....

the mini-z tire is specific to the mini-z wheel in that the tire diameter, thickness, width, treatment of edge profile, interior reverse lip to adapt to wheel design are specific to mini-z wheel product they in turn developed and produced, chassis and autoscale proportion. it's not simply a donut they took off a shelf. as simple as it may be, you cannot deny there was design involved which required outlay of cost. the design effort may be simple and the options limited but exists just the same. that design criteria as realized in the product produced by kyosho is copyrighted. xmod came up with their own wheel design and tire as an example and did not copy kyosho. again, there are other ways to do the same thing.

a definition of 'tire' is also irrelevant by the way. it is not the definition of a tire that is in question but the design of said tire.

you better believe goodyear copyrights/patents and protects their designs.

So let me understand ur point...it dosnt matter that it is black an round...it dosnt matter that it IS a "TIRE".....?.....ur point being that it a has a groove for mounting ...with out this grooove said tire would not work on the miniz wheel properly there for it would just ba a tire an not an option part fo a miniz correct?

yasuji
2012.01.16, 01:38 PM
i think your vastly simplifying the point....

the mini-z tire is specific to the mini-z wheel in that the tire diameter, thickness, width, treatment of edge profile, interior reverse lip to adapt to wheel design are specific to mini-z wheel product they in turn developed and produced, chassis and autoscale proportion. it's not simply a donut they took off a shelf. as simple as it may be, you cannot deny there was design involved which required outlay of cost. the design effort may be simple and the options limited but exists just the same. that design criteria as realized in the product produced by kyosho is copyrighted. xmod came up with their own wheel design and tire as an example and did not copy kyosho. again, there are other ways to do the same thing.

a definition of 'tire' is also irrelevant by the way. it is not the definition of a tire that is in question but the design of said tire.

you better believe goodyear copyrights/patents and protects their designs.
I belive that GY does infact copyght
th fact that x mods used there own wheel and tire combo is irrelavan as they did not make aftrmarket parts for mini z the manufactured there own car


in the real world there is more than 1 190/55/17 motorcycletire that mounts to every manufatures 17"x6" wheel...

arch2b
2012.01.16, 02:20 PM
the fact that kyosho designed the tire to fit their designed wheel makes it copyrighted. there is not a standard wheel across all platforms to use the motorcycle example. xmods is within the same scale and choose a different designed wheel and tire. that design aspect is copyrighted as it makes it unique from others is the point i am asserting. that one single little detail is what makes the 'tire' different from another manufacturer operating within the same scale and size. that is enough in itself to make the design copyright. not the entire tire as a whole as you point out, you cant copyright the blank round tire as a design feature. the blank as you would, then is modified to become unique to the produced product line of mini-z. so to copy that tire with a rounded or flat edge profile with or without lettering and the rear inverted lip i argue is indeed copying. as soon as the tread pattern is added, assuming it's not the same as kyosho product, you've made it unique.

benmlee
2012.01.16, 02:24 PM
Want to clarify copyright and patent as I understand it. Dealt with some of that at work.

There is utility patent, design patent and copyright.

Utility patent is the kind we understand patent to be. A new invention.

Design patent is just the look of the part. For example, a scissor jack that has 3 sections. The idea is not new, but the way you proportion the lengths of each segment and the overall look of the part is patented. That kind of patent is also hard to defend against.

Copy right is meant for verbatim copying of a work whether art work, writings, musice etc. It does not cover functional aspect of it. Patent does that. However, it does cover artistic design in a functional object. For example, the function of a wheel cannot be copyright. Even if you are the caveman that invented it. However, the decorative part of the wheel like the spokes and openings are copyright. Best example is my favorite wheel, the Lamborghini Miura. All that intricate design would be copyright.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl103.html

As it applies to mini-z.
The T plate and tires would not be copyright. Those are functional features. All those grooves in the T-plate are technically the interface. They are there just to mount up to the chassis. Take for example water pump on a car. The interface is very intricate. Many holes and curves. Way more intricate than the T-plate, but GM cannot claim copyright for that since that is the interface. Is a functional feature of the waterpump. Now if Kyosho carve a fancy "K" on the plate, then is copyright since is considered art work.

If one manufacture copy another's motor mount, you cannot claim copyright for the function of the part. The artistic part of it on the other hand can be claimed. Artistic part of a motor mount is also harder to discern than say the wheels on a Lamborghini. This is my small understanding of the laws.

arch2b
2012.01.16, 02:33 PM
ok, now this is getting interesting! thank you very much benmlee.

now, if it's difficult to dsicern a tire as a work of art, how it a motor mount any easier? it's a matter of function, not art, just a tire would be. notice atomic does include printed logo but i don't see how that justifies it as art either.

it's getting very good now:)

benmlee
2012.01.16, 03:08 PM
The question here is one of ethics rather than legal. There may or may not be room for maneuvering legally, but given this small industry, any legal action would be like the nuclear option.

The main question here is inconsistency between copying Kyosho and copying each 3rd party. All 3rd party has to in some degree copy Kyosho. T-plate do have to have all the grooves and features for interface. But there are also instance where 3rd party copy exactly like Atomic with C-clip. King pin and gyros are two other examples.

Racers usually don't have issues with 3rd party copying the OEM. But 3rd party copying each other is a definite no-no. Is not just in mini-z, but in other hobbies as well. It is especially true in a small community. The more effort one manufacture put into a product the more unacceptable it is for another manufacture to copy. Copying a unique bushing or fastener is one thing, but copying an entire intricate design is another all together. As the saying goes just because you can does not mean you should.

The interesting question is why is ok to copy OEM, but not each 3rd party. That standard is somewhat universal across different hobbies and products. I think the obvious difference is size of the company. Kyosho is the mothership. All the 3rd parties circle around it. If Kyosho stops mini-z tomorrow, all aftermarket and races would be gone.

Hop up manuacture do not compete at the same level as Kyosho. Most hop ups are small mom and pop outfits. They have tight budgets, and are usually run by enthusiasts. Hop up manufactures compete against each other. In capitalism, you ability to compete is directly related to your access to capital. That is why we have different standards for small business, medium business, large business and global corporations.

To test that line of reasoning, Let say a Chinese company with their billion dollar reserve copies MR03 exactly down to the controller. And that big company is hurting ability of Kyosho to innovate. Most racers would cry foul just as much. We know that company is just driving Kyosho out of business. That is picking on somebody your own size.

Within companies the same size, you will never find Associated copy Losi exactly. Losi came out with the Slash that was hugely popular. Associated came out with their line truck that compete in the same class, but better design that is aimed more for the serious racers. You will also never find Associated make replacement parts for Losi using better material. There is an unwritten rule that you don't copy another player at your level.

arch2b
2012.01.16, 03:20 PM
again, thank you for the informative and logical reasoning behind what most are trying to say i think but not putting it a rational frame for argument.

another example if you will, iwaver early releases that were essentially identical copies of mr-02 and then maybe mr-02? that was some time ago so hard to recall exactly. it was a replica of lesser quality. while not at the same level as kyosho per sae, it was not an aftermarket manuf. in the end, they did make modifications to future product lines but the early stuff was xerox copies.

color01
2012.01.16, 03:32 PM
all good points but again, are not applied consistently.

actual performance of an enhancement modification is irrelevant to the issue of copying. is there more than one way to make an h plate, yes. has history shown us a narrow design path has proven to be successful, your dead right. it does not however have any relevance to the issue of copying an h plate. once it's made, copyright exists plain and simple. you need not prove it works.

again, requiring x to provide solid quantitative data substantiating a claim of optimization would be a good thing however all but maybe reflex racing are guilty of not providing this consistently if at all. it is actually rare to find a manuf. that provide solid quantitative data for optimization of mini-z parts. check around, you don't see a lot of product info on nearly all of the manuf. site beyond product description and part number and or general use. demanding this of one and not all feels a bit unfair to say the least. i must say that RR by far provides the more data on nearly all of it's parts. i think we all understand what should be provided and what we would all like to see however it's not what all are providing to begin with.

and while we all understand a tire is a tire is a tire, to shrug it off again applies the copy issue inconsistently. i think we can all acknowledge the understanding the difference between a tire and a differential for example but the core issue remains the same, how it's applied is what i'm pushing for revelation.

yes, i believe kyosho could enforce copyright on MANY items if it so chooses. i believe MANY aftermarket manuf. could as well and i think you'll find that this indeed does begin to happen, as it rightfully should.

thank you btw for the very concise response, i found it very insighful in adding to the discussion. it's clear there is more emphasis placed on products with higher levels of complexity with clear understanding as to why that is. there is also clearly more emotion on these items of higher design excellence and complexity which i think also drives this. as a designer myself, i would not argue against it. i would argue that to be selective in doing so only complicates the issue. the latest issue may be the last straw so to speak that breaks this whole thing loose. i encourage all manuf. to protect their design work. what i feel is unfair is for everyone to cry foul when in reality, it's a far more common practice than admitted. the shades of grey so to speak differ greatly but the practice is widespread.
I'm not the best explainer so hopefully an example should make my logic appear more consistent:

For a motor mount, you can see for yourself that "natural selection" has not narrowed down the design of motor mounts in any way, we still have some completely unique designs out there performing very well such as PN's high-beam 98mm LCG V4 (my current) and Reflex's curved-bottom 945 mount. Unless you can prove (via optimization data) that these features of the mounts are imperative to their function (laptimes/compatability/ease of use/manufacturing/etc.), then you can't say that either one is "what they're all going to look like anyways" and therefore you can't copy it ethically. To tie this into Ben's post, without optimization data or statistical data from the racetrack you would not be able to argue that the unique features of those two mounts are "functional". Even with an FEA you can only say that it's "good", not "perfect", so you can't prove that the high-beam design or the curved-bottom design is 100% optimized and that you cannot deviate from it without a loss in functionality -- because you can. Furthermore, since the high beams or curved bottoms are definitely not interfacing requirements with the Mini-Z chassis, you come to the conclusion that those design elements are neither functional necessities or interfacing parts, therefore unique art, and copyright applies.

If you wanted to go back to tires and T-plates, all four sides of the tire profile are interfaces: the inside touches the rim, the outside touches the ground, and the sidewalls sometimes touch the ground. The overall shape of all of these can be argued to be design constraints to fulfill the interfacing requirements, and even the materials too. So no part of the tire is subject to copyright except for whatever extra you molded onto the sidewall and (if we are to deviate from slicks) the tread pattern molded into the profile.

The front and rear of a T-plate, as Ben mentioned, are the interface with the motor mount and Mini-Z chassis, and so the only design "free space" that you have is, again, just the center section of the T-plate. I agree, the center section here could be subject to copyright depending on the design of the T-plate. The PN MR03 G10 #2, 3, and 4 are all fine since they have a curved profile, but the #5 is straight much like a Kyosho T-plate. It is still arguable that this is a functional necessity though due to the stiffness of 0.5mm G10 and the lack of space in the MR03's center tunnel. So the straight sides can be argued to be "functional" aspects (i.e. let's not scrape the sides of the chassis!) or if you wanted to be totally convincing, could provide stiffness data to prove ultimately that the straight sides and width were needed to provide the necessary stiffness fulfilling of a "#5" T-plate. But for narrower, straight T-plates, I somewhat agree with you that there's a grey area. The straight design is the easiest to machine, and thus could fall under the "functionality" title because it is a cost reduction method. There's a nice big grey area here IMO and since T-plates are a fairly low-key product it seems that the manufacturers just don't care as much.


You bring up a good point about the iWaver, the early cars were flat out replicas of the MR02, and only differentiated themselves over time with a couple minor detail changes in the tub chassis and an X pattern on the top cover. Considering their marketing ability and the quality of the product, they were certainly not at the same level as Kyosho. Since the two product lines weren't occupying the same playing field there's considerably less threat to the original product. For the current products by X-Power in the OP, they're placed to occupy exactly the same playing field as the original parts and thus presents a threat and an insult to the original company, PN. Though X-Power may be new, they are positioning themselves to be the "same size" as PN with a full lineup of Mini-Z hopup parts, and the threat to PN is why we're crying foul over it when we didn't really for the iWaver (no real threat to Kyosho).

arch2b
2012.01.16, 03:57 PM
i'm not really touching the 'ethical' side of the discussion as that is nearly impossible to discussion rationally and without emotion bias. suffice to say as a designer, i don't find replicating anothers work ethical.

if i were a more eloquent person, i think you would find that much of those arguments are within a grey area while some are very clear. again, thank you for the concise reply.:) the differentiation between interface/function and design elements is also a very good reference point.

the difficulty i find in requesting/requiring data is that virtually no one is doing it. not for tires, not for h plates, not for motor mounts. it's simply not common practice. i agree that it should be but it's not. this is where the argument gets fussy because if your declaring someone must provide something, where are we with the other 90% that do not provide this as well?

also, i picked tires and h plate as simple examples. if you were for example to review all knuckles made in the last 10 years i think my point is just a meaningful. i will concede that in the last couple years designers have provide more unique modifications to a basic feature however over the course of the life of mini-z, it's certainly not so. again, i'm looking at 10 years of mini-z history, not the last 3 years or so since RR, PN, Atomic have exponentially driven the design to new heights. there is a very long history of parts and copying here to look at.

imxlr8ed
2012.01.16, 05:22 PM
ed, lets please not bring the closed discussion over here:) that has run it's course. the discussion presented here is not specifically about any one in particular thus the effort to not use manufac. names and is based on the logic behind the discussion. i don't want to see this discussion closed as a result of beating a dead horse.

as a designer myself as well, i do understand the issue at hand personally however i've not brought that into this discussion.

Didn't know it was a dead horse... I'm a bit screwed up surfing with my Ipod and posted in the wrong thread. Thanks for modding it to where it belonged.

I still haven't seen an Xpower sponsored racer.

I find it incredible that a company that wants to get a foot in the door with "new products" didn't even have the sense to try and make small design changes to make them their own... not well thought out. But then again, if you have to rely on copying what others have to get started into a market, I would think that thinking things through and doing something to make something your own would really be stepping outside of where they exist.

I was thinking of making something called an e-pod though... I just have to find out where to get the communist red anodization for the back of them.

color01
2012.01.16, 05:57 PM
Arch, I agree with you there on the data part of it, and of course, we both understand why companies would want to protect their data. So without that resource, you turn to the next one which is statistical data ("natural selection") on the market. Is there one tire tread design that happens to dominate everything else at the track? Hard to tell, since it's normally the compound matters more than the design. Since it's not set in stone what tread pattern works the best, we see different tread patterns on non-slick tires. But for slick tires the biggest difference you're going to see is the sidewall, and everything else has already converged by definition of the term "slick". So you can call it copying to an extent but if there's no design freedom then you simply can't differentiate your product in any way other than putting some different molding on the sidewall. I only see one kind of slick tire that works, and that's a slick tire around 25mm mounted diameter with a barely rounded profile and a somewhat sharp sidewall. Of course I can't prove it, but to me that sure looks like (and can be argued to be) natural selection at work. That has been my main point to add to this discussion, it's not unethical copying if you literally can't do anything else to it.

Knuckles are a good point to bring up -- the majority of the part is dictated by interfacing with the kingpin and the steering tierod, and what you have left to design is the thickness of the material and the stack height of the knuckle. Though at first it does look like everyone copied Kyosho for the MR02 knuckles, we've eventually found ways to diverge away from what we thought had already converged to a single design. Convergence is a grey concept too and the less "free design" space you have to work with, the easier it is to argue for. All of your examples of copying are on parts that have extremely little "free design" space. Knuckles, kingpins, springs, perches, tierods, T-plates, tires, diff shafts, etc. And in these examples, again, I hold to the viewpoint that if you literally can't do anything to it design-wise, then so be it.

If I may illustrate the point using another scale, take 1/12 pan cars from 2000-2005. This was the peak of NiMH development before LiPo started taking over and screwing with the layouts. You only ever saw one of two configurations:

- Side battery, center T-plate
- Center battery, side links

And almost all the cars from all the manufacturers looked the same! Almost all T-plate cars used disk dampers, and those that didn't used the exact same side shock tubes as all the link cars used. Front ends were almost standardized to the AE Dynamic Strut as it was "the best", the batteries were only ever in 2-3 configurations, the chassis plates only came in 2 flavors (T-plate or link), top shocks always laid out the same way on a standoff, etc. etc. This was the way it had to be done because 1/12 pan had essentially plateaued -- you deviate, you lose. The bodies all looked (and still look) like wedges, with only minor aesthetic differences. This is a textbook case of an entire market having optimized itself to an extreme and almost completely written off its "free design" space. The remaining differences only catered to the differing preferences of the pilots, minor non-structural aesthetic details, and colors. In a market like this, you could blatantly copy the fastest car at the time (HB Cyclone 12 or CRC Carpet Knife?), alter battery positioning, servo mounts, top shock angles, change the anodizing color, and call it a day because you 1) would be competitive! and 2) there was nothing else you could change! This is not the case in Mini-Z, because as refined as our hop-up parts are now they are not nearly as honed down as the 1/12 scene was in '00-'05. We've still got plenty of things to invent and plenty of "free design" space to explore thanks to generous racing rules and a plethora of conditions that the cars need to adapt to -- racing, shelf display, bashing...

Why I say you don't need FEA data to prove that Mini-Z motor mounts are not converging in 2012 is because there is no one design constraint set that drives the design of the current generation of motor mounts. If you look back about 5-6 years, PN and Atomic motor mounts actually looked quite similar -- they were converging -- but then they found out they could do different things with the piece and thus found new design criteria which drove the divergence of their motor mounts to what you see today. And of course Reflex came in, formulated their own different design criteria, and set off on a different course entirely with their mounts. So with this newfound divergence in the market, for a company to jump in now and imply that they copied a 3-year old design due to prior convergence is just not convincing.

lfisminiz
2012.01.16, 06:37 PM
ALL the points being made on this thread are good and valid. To me, the whole thing falls on having respect and integrety. PN (Philip) has been in the Zs for a long time. The PN crew has come out with inovative (example...A-arm, Tri-shock etc...and MANY more) products. Reflex started up, not to long ago and came out with there own line. Was it a copy of PN? NO not at all. They did there own thing. Now XPower comes along and makes copies of PN and Reflex parts with NO inovation or difference from the others.

Respect and Integraty!:)

bermbuster
2012.01.16, 06:39 PM
the motor pods of today borrowed from 1/12 scale too. The rear axle ride height adjusters (bearing carriers). If memory serves me CRC used them first.
In this whole discussion about parts converging. What part do you think made the biggest change to Mini Z? What part do you think still has room to evolve?

color01
2012.01.16, 07:23 PM
IMO it's the motor mount that started the craze. It's a big part in the car: instantly noticeable. A big canvas on which to paint your brand's signature design when the rest of the chassis is (mainly) Kyosho plastic. A way to reasonably run "x" different motors in your car and swap them out at whim, which necessitates the development of other parts to improve handling.

Mini-Z still has a lot of time left before all hop-ups converge, but you can see that it has basically boiled down to front end, top shock, disk damper/side shocks, motor mount, rear axle. Rear axles have started converging: all brands going for lightweight diffs, 5-6 balls, alu/carbon axles, and finer-toothed spurs. Everything else is quite divergent with different design goals, so convergence won't happen so soon. And that's a good thing, I like the variety of Mini-Z much more than the single-minded focus of 1/12. We also don't have enough players in the market to really drive convergence quickly anyways, and (hopefully) before things begin to slow down, Kyosho will have outputted an MR-04 or something like that and the cycle will begin all over again.

arch2b
2012.01.16, 07:59 PM
PLEASE keep this discussion free of xpower/x/y/z comparisons. it's not the subject of the discussion.

i call it a dead horse ed because it's clear what has happened and to continue to kick it while it's down is just piling on. it's dead, it's left on the side of the road. time for the traffic to stop slowing to see the road kill and continue on with the flow of traffic. that and i don't like copying, editing posts in general. i'm very hands off moderator but don't like to see what i consider a very insightful discussion turn into a pinata party. time will take it's course and as color would say, natural selection will do what it does.

arch2b
2012.01.16, 08:02 PM
i agree. in 10 years i've seen motor mounts go from exoskeletons to works of art:p funny to say that now given the discussion taken place:cool: the finesse in both production and design have changed enormously since megatech.

bermbuster
2012.01.16, 11:48 PM
i agree. in 10 years i've seen motor mounts go from exoskeletons to works of art:p funny to say that now given the discussion taken place:cool: the finesse in both production and design have changed enormously since megatech.

I lived very close to megatech and my good friend worked for them. what was funny the owner Peter Winston told me that Mini z s are dead about the time they introduced the MR-02 and that they would no longer make hop ups.
I bet they still have a pallet or two of mini z stuff in the warehouse.

imxlr8ed
2012.01.17, 02:57 AM
PLEASE keep this discussion free of xpower/x/y/z comparisons. it's not the subject of the discussion.

i call it a dead horse ed because it's clear what has happened and to continue to kick it while it's down is just piling on. it's dead, it's left on the side of the road. time for the traffic to stop slowing to see the road kill and continue on with the flow of traffic. that and i don't like copying, editing posts in general. i'm very hands off moderator but don't like to see what i consider a very insightful discussion turn into a pinata party. time will take it's course and as color would say, natural selection will do what it does.

Just saying what I think... I hope for nothing but the best for our scale and I always am hopeful that it will finally get the respect it deserves.

No more kicking here... that horse ain't running anymore races.

I'm sure that it's no picnic modding these threads right now. :o

arch2b
2012.01.17, 07:29 AM
berm, ask them to get that stuff off the pallates and on ebay at least. there is still a small market for the mr-01. kyosho themselves made a 2.4 asf mr-01 and there are those still looking to use them. great planes drove mini-z and megatech mini-z parts into the ground. they got tangled up in a bad relationship unfortunately. this is why i hate to see retailing restrictions, conditions demanded or required. first, it limits competition, for better or worse, you can argue that point both ways, i know trust me. :rolleyes: there are many forms this can take such as; limited availability due to exclusivity deals, minimum purchase requirements in a time where NO ONE wants large overhead and back stock, non competing agreements such as if you carry x, you cannot carry y, etc. to continue to use the analogy, natural selection and trending will determine market direction. companies however will want to protect their slice of the market as best they can with whatever tools at their disposal and in that regard, you can certainly understand why it's done. as a consumer, its not friendly but as a business, it's probably a necessary evil. i know the shop here has exclusivity deals just as the other major shops do and it stinks as a consumer as you rarely ever find everything you need in one place. i know it's simply a fact of life and no different when shopping for other things but inconvenient for a niche market consumer. i often have to order from 2-3 places at times which of course kills you on the shipping. as a consumer, this inconvenient. as a business, it makes sense to protect a sales stream. there are worse things than being inconvenient though:p rather have to go to 4 places than not have the opportunity at all.

z3zinho
2012.01.17, 08:25 AM
I'm finding this a interesting read with some valid point of views going booth ways.

I guess the main point in this is where you draw the line. I guess most here are brand biased, so they do tend to loose objectivity. For example, In regards to tires, the copy of the original GPM designs is(thread paterm), for me obvious, but most fail to recognize that. Haven't heard anyone cry fault over this :rolleyes:

There have been a lot of innovative mini-z parts over the years that have been copied. The screw mounting motor pods, the whole 94mm and 96mm concepts, the disk damper concept etc etc. While I can understand that when brand x copied the whole 94mm concept out of brand y most would be okay with it, if I had come up with the idea of the 94mm MM mount, I would be pissed to see my idea copied, and wouldn't really care if it was a different design or not. ;)

This being said, I think all the top 3 "racer oriented" manufacturers (RR,Atomic and PN) put a lot of effort into designing new parts and concepts that work. All the money spent on R&D and all the track testing and support given by means of a large community of team drivers do make a difference, both on the quality and functionality of the parts, and in the brand recognition this manufacturers have! In the end I think "natural selection" will take care of this (where is Ximpact now?), and for us costumers, I think having more manufacturers coming into play is actually a good thing, even if some parts look the same :rolleyes:

Anyway, since the parts on the first post are actually x-power parts, I think everyone is making a bid deal out of this for no reason, and just giving x-power some free publicity. I found out about x-power from all this noise, and went as far as trying to find their stuff for sale, just to check their prices :D

arch2b
2012.01.17, 08:33 AM
i'm glad that others are finding this discussion interesting and not just us few whom have responded at length :) lets just try to keep the objectivity i'm striving to maintain here:p

yasuji
2012.01.17, 09:55 AM
the fact that kyosho designed the tire to fit their designed wheel makes it copyrighted. there is not a standard wheel across all platforms to use the motorcycle example.
seems that ben and brian have answered alot of questions
im not the technical type but after reading brians and bens posts it helps me to understand the technical side of what i am trying to point out about the motorcycle tires
all tires 190/55/17 tires from all manufacturers fir all 17"x6" wheels made by all manufacturers the standard the tire?wheel bead area and the diameter and width....
the major differences in the tires from dunlop/goodyear, Michelin, Pirelli is the profile sidewall carcass and tread design

arch2b
2012.01.17, 10:11 AM
yes, i agree as well. ben and brian have added great value to the understanding of the minutia of it all. :)

where i continue to disagree with you on the wheel is that the kyosho design with a lip is not a standard adopted by all in this scale. it is in fact unique in this scale thus not a standard (iwaver has subsequently copied mini-z). it may have lead to the greater overall standard but it, in itself is not a standard to which all in this scale have.
i'm assuming that in reality, motorcycle wheels are based on an interface standard across all manufacturers. aftermarket thus need meet this requirement to produce products acceptable to them. you can see where this differs with mini-z as the kyosho wheel is not a universal standard as evident by xmods design approach. one could argue had xmods had higher quality controls, it may have led to greater change in the market than it did. in reality, the poor quality of the controls lead natural selection to take it's course relegating it to the lost and found. who knows, had things been different, maybe we would all be using tires with a center rib vs. the rear inverted lip.

yasuji
2012.01.17, 10:32 AM
yes, i agree as well. ben and brian have added great value to the understanding of the minutia of it all. :)

where i continue to disagree with you on the wheel is that the kyosho design with a lip is not a standard adopted by all in this scale. it is in fact unique in this scale thus not a standard (iwaver has subsequently copied mini-z). it may have lead to the greater overall standard but it, in itself is not a standard to which all in this scale have.
i'm assuming that in reality, motorcycle wheels are based on an interface standard across all manufacturers. aftermarket thus need meet this requirement to produce products acceptable to them. you can see where this differs with mini-z as the kyosho wheel is not a universal standard as evident by xmods design approach. one could argue had xmods had higher quality controls, it may have led to greater change in the market than it did. in reality, the poor quality of the controls lead natural selection to take it's course relegating it to the lost and found. who knows, had things been different, maybe we would all be using tires with a center rib vs. the rear inverted lip.
but just as in all other industry's if you cant utilize the "FIT" there would be no other parts or advancements
maybe look at it this way.... kyosho has the standard and all the other AFTERMARKET parts manufacturers have to "meet this requirement to produce products" ... if it doesn't fit on the kyosho wheel... no one would buy it for there mini-z... same as you wouldnt buy an xmod tire for ur mini-z

arch2b
2012.01.17, 10:45 AM
very good way to illustrate that point. the interface aspect of it also supports this position. :) where i still find difference in the comparison is that in real life, all use a defined interface. i concede the point in that a mini-z wheel is a standard for mini-z but still differ on the comparison to real motorcycle as kyosho is but one manuf. within 1:28, not the industry as a whole.

yasuji
2012.01.17, 10:51 AM
very good way to illustrate that point. the interface aspect of it also supports this position. :) where i still find difference in the comparison is that in real life, all use a defined interface. i concede the point in that a mini-z wheel is a standard for mini-z but still differ on the comparison to real motorcycle as kyosho is but one manuf. within 1:28, not the industry as a whole.

i think there lye's the problem....kyosho IS the only complete car manufacturer (aside from i waver but it is all the same) in 1/28th scale... and untill other rc car companys jump in ... kyosho will hold the std

yasuji
2012.01.17, 10:56 AM
i think there lye's the problem....kyosho IS the only complete car manufacturer (aside from i waver but it is all the same) in 128th scale... and untill other rc car companys jump in ... kyosho will hold the std

on that note i now think i understand why kyosho built 1/28 rather than 1/24... so that they could hold the std!:D

arch2b
2012.01.17, 11:31 AM
iwaver/firelap still exists. there are still 1:28 manufacturers beside kyosho. they are undeniably of minuscule scale in comparison however.

CristianTabush
2012.01.17, 11:36 AM
As a manufacturer, designer, enthusiast I can tell you that there is no thing that tears me apart more than having a part copied.

It is partly an honor, since it sort of flattering that others like your stuff so much that they copy your part. It is also so frustrating, because in a sense, they are taking money out of your pocket.

I know Arch wants no further discussion of the subject, and I am not trying to add fuel to the fire. I am just giving you the insight as to what a small company in this industry feels with what is going on.

Honestly, it is disappointing. But that is the downfall of manufacturing our cheap goods in Asia. There is really no way to protect your designs from being copied. It really is too expensive to pay for lawyers to fight a battle on a product that "might" cost a company 2-3k USD. This is reality.

In the past, there was an "unwritten" rule that Mini-Z companies would not copy ourselves, in the spirit of competition and being honorable. As the market grows however, at least I understand that this won't be possible in the long run.

How to handle this? Well, the best thing for us has been to keep our composure. The larger players in this very small industry have established themselves throughout the years and have a reputation to sell and keep selling. We all have established a brand identity that by itself is good enough to "push out" imitators without the need of over-reactive business tactics.

We have all been copied products. We have been copied on several occasions by some of the larger players down to the T on our specs. It will continue to happen as convergence continues to happen in our industry. It happens in other scales, in other industries, across the board. However, the one thing we have that nobody can copy is our brand name, and the service and image that we bring and associate to the community.

And let's not get stuck in semantics and technicalities. The X Power Parts are copies of the PN items, much like the top cover is a copy of ours.

arch2b
2012.01.17, 11:53 AM
i'm not suggesting they aren't. my point to this thread is that it is not addressing the recent issue. it is in fact addressing the semantics and technicalities in and of themselves. what i keep coming back to is people trying to take this to that subject when it's not which is why you see my REPEATED requests that we refrain for using that recent issue as a cause in this discussion. this whole discussion is about the minutia, not the issue of whether what x did was ethical or right. that has it's own thread which the author choose to close.

but serious kudos to RR for taking the high road. it's not the easy path for sure. as a short kid, i got into my fair share of arguments and learned a good lesson in that you can't win an argument with an idiot. don't take this to mean i'm calling anyone an idiot but your just not going to change the opinion of some regardless of how you present the issue.

benmlee
2012.01.17, 01:06 PM
great planes drove mini-z and megatech mini-z parts into the ground. they got tangled up in a bad relationship unfortunately. this is why i hate to see retailing restrictions, conditions demanded or required. first, it limits competition, for better or worse, you can argue that point both ways, i know trust me. :rolleyes: there are many forms this can take such as; limited availability due to exclusivity deals, minimum purchase requirements in a time where NO ONE wants large overhead and back stock, non competing agreements such as if you carry x, you cannot carry y, etc.

Can you give more details on what happened with Great Planes. Sounds like interesting history.

z3zinho
2012.01.17, 01:28 PM
I think that if Kyosho wanted to, even the fit of the H-plate could eventually be patented. Grant, you keep talking about motorcycle tires, but even the pneumatic tire was once patented ;)

SaiTam
2012.01.17, 02:04 PM
But there are also instance where 3rd party copy exactly like Atomic with C-clip.

A C-clip!!!! Come on.........


And let's not get stuck in semantics and technicalities. The X Power Parts are copies of the PN items, much like the top cover is a copy of ours.


To be exact, the X-Power top cover probably violated Kyosho more.......

Have a good day everyone!! I hope every racer and manufacturer can get along well.

*the opinions expressed above are my personal feelings and not representative of any companies / shops I may be associated with

CristianTabush
2012.01.17, 03:12 PM
Sai, there is not much of a difference, but if you are in Asia, or in other 3rd World/Developing nations, chances are your stuff will be copied. A lot of products that are being copied are coming from the same factories, so there is much less of barrier. You also get the case where overrun on production is sold through other distribution channels. If products were made here, there would actually be more protection for the design house. Our laws tend to protect more.

We are not even going to get into how the top cover violates Kyosho more... It looks exactly like ours! They did not even care to change a rear "beam" on that. If you want to discuss this further, you can email or PM me and we can discuss the matter, however, I rather just walk away and leave it at that. There are just too many feelings come out when I think of a lot of the business practices in this industry that I rather keep to myself.

arch2b
2012.01.17, 03:13 PM
Can you give more details on what happened with Great Planes. Sounds like interesting history.

oh boy, thats a sore subject for us old timers and hobby shop owners of long ago. let me dig around to see if there are already good stories to pilfer vs. scratching my head to recall details of long ago. suffice to say kyosho usa came about in part due to getting away from the exclusivity agreement that great planes had as the sole north american distributor for mini-z. i'm sure there are numerous more important reasons but this was also a result of that break. we should all be very thankful that we have kyosho usa:D

arch2b
2012.01.17, 03:22 PM
...There are just too many feelings come out when I think of a lot of the business practices in this industry that I rather keep to myself.

it's simply far to easy to have something taken out of context, misunderstood in the restrictive format of forum posting so i don't blame you in the least for feeling this way:p also why i've tried very hard to keep this topic here objective. it's not easy as is evident by some of the responses.

again, i want to thank everyone who's posted a response for continuing this discussion on what are some very fine points and interesting technical revelations. sure makes it easier to read and causes less gridlock due to masses slowing down to see a wreck.

i've already learned some interesting things:cool:

SaiTam
2012.01.17, 04:07 PM
I never paid 100% attention to every manufacturing detail of both RR and X-power top covers. I thought they were both identical to the Kyosho plastic covers except for material. I guess I'm wrong. I don't have alu. covers although long before alu. top cover came out I had advised Atomic to make one. They made the Rigid 4 point DPS instead to cure the weak top plate problem.

I mis-read the post about "Asia" at first. I had since edited it out of my post. I now have a better understanding of what you were trying to say.

In summary:

-X-power's unique way of making its products does raise some eyebrows........but you can see the owner is stresssing 7075 Aluminum everywhere on his products. Is 7075 what consumers want?

-I don't know if the claimed anti-trust law did apply; but threatening dealers is kind of ugly. If I were the dealer I would just advise XX to apply worldwide patents and file massive lawsuits.

-Not all of Asia is corrupt. I was not offended but some Asians may. Clearly manufacturing in Asia still has its financial benefits despite the problem stated.

-The C-clip.........!!!:cool:

arch2b
2012.01.17, 05:00 PM
anyone care to explain the subtle differences in various aluminum grades as relates to mini-z parts performance?

Mike Keely
2012.01.17, 05:47 PM
It has a different number on the packing slip when the block is delivered to the factory. Just kidding, I don't have a clue.:D

hilldebrandt
2012.01.17, 06:41 PM
anyone care to explain the subtle differences in various aluminum grades as relates to mini-z parts performance?

Interesting article from E-how on the differences between 6061 and 7075 alloys...

http://www.ehow.com/info_8078719_difference-between-6061-7075-aluminum.html

bermbuster
2012.01.17, 07:33 PM
A little 7075 trivia....
it was invented in the 1930s by a Japanese company (Sumitomo).
This grade of aluminum was used for the airframe of the Zero Fighter.

Im an old skool BMXer from the early 70's hence Bermbuster....
In bicycle frame construction 6061 was the norm because it was flexy.
7075 is more rigid so depending on what kind of ride you would want
you would choose between the 2 alloys.
In terms of mini z parts that are 1 inch (25mm) long Im not sure how much of a difference you can see.

color01
2012.01.17, 08:55 PM
I think for most Mini-Z applications 6061 is already strong enough with a high safety factor, so using 7075 would be overkill unless you're machining finely designed parts or parts that innately have a low safety factor from the factory. PN makes motor mounts in 6061 and rear axles in 7075 -- I imagine the diff axle is a little more "at risk" in a collision than the motor mount, so you would want the extra stiffness and strength just in case. The other benefit to 7075 I guess is easier machinability (correct me if I'm wrong, it's been a while) so small, delicate features such as axle threads would be easier to carve out without flaws in 7075.

I don't have any data on the current crop of Mini-Z motor mounts so I can't say for sure, but I would bet anyone a large sum of money that 6061 vs. 7075 isn't going to create a significant handling difference in a well-designed motor mount. Especially in the case of XPower, the PN design took into account the 6061 alloy and so if they didn't alter the design to reflect the manufacturing and performance characteristics of 7075, then all they're going to increase is the material cost, not performance per se.

Subjectively, I will note that my mechanical rear grip peaked when I was using the PN CF reconfigurable mount with the thin 1.5mm base plate. Between the soft base plate (much softer than any aluminum piece) and the slightly higher weight that mount gave slightly more traction in general vs. the 2-generations-ago 94 LCG V3 and 98 LCG V4 mounts, which are all-6061. This is a BIG stiffness difference in materials for a very small difference in real-world performance. Changing the 94 LCG V3 from 6061 to 7075 would most likely result in no practical difference.

EMU
2012.01.17, 09:48 PM
Here is some information regarding the differences in alu alloy compositions...
http://www.onlinemetals.com/aluminumguide.cfm

In general, 6061 is not as strong, or easy to machine, but is MUCH easier to weld and annodize than 7075 due to the higher copper content. 7075 also costs about double per unit compared to 6061.

In this scale, 7075 shouldnt handle considerably different for a motormount, but would offer more durability on the part that is 7075. For a part like a motormount, with a damper arm, it will reduce flex, and would be appropriate. Reflex's motormounts use two mounting screws on both sides of the motormount to reduce any lateral flex that is seen in other mounts that only mount on one side. Minimal as it may be, it is still noticeable.

The main advantage of the 7075 is that you can use less material, since it is nearly twice as strong.

6061 Density (lb / cu. in.) 0.098
7075 Density (lb / cu. in.) 0.101
While a minor difference, this shows that there is a weight disadvantage to making the same product with 7075 aluminum compared to 6061. However, if the part is designed with 7075 in mind, considerably less alloy would be required to make the part, resulting in a lighter product.

7075 is also poor for corrosion resistance due to higher copper content, so the annodization quality is important. 6061 has good corrosion resistance, which is why it has a better finish naturally without annodization, and can be left natural with good effect.

TheRinger
2012.01.17, 09:50 PM
Wow! I have to say, I felt sorry for x racer at first. But now its just sad. Now this isn't the first time someone ripped somebody else off. Like how GPM tires and PN tires were just alike in everyway including the mismatched batches of compounds. Or how GPM, 3Racing and R246 have the exact same mid mount motor pods. I can go on about a lot of copycat products but that is just the nature of this hobby. But now I think x racer took it to a whole new and sad level. I mean really? Golden horizon ripped off some of PN's stuff but atleast they ripped off stuff PN no longer makes or sells hardly at all. But I also have to say, is usually when this happens, they sell it for cheaper and can be a little easier for someone new to the hobby to get, which in turn gets more people into the hobby which is a good thing.
A perfect example is when I tried to get my local hobby shop into mini z's. The owner wanted to get the stuff like we mini z racers get, especially when I demo the cars for people who where curious. He tried to get PN to supply him but PN said he had to do a 1000 dollar buy in and that was not in the budget of the hobby shop owner for something he wanted to see if it would work. He sadly somehow ended up dealing with atomicmods who screwed him over and put a bad taste in his mouth. We tried to get him to go to reflex or the shop, but he never did and it eventually led to the end of mini z racing at my local hobby shop which led me to once again drive 70 or more miles out of my way to race again which is really getting old. Now if my hobby shop could stock these rip off parts and people would buy them and keep them interested in a hobby I like so much, then so be it. It keeps the hobby alive. What I'm trying to say is people like this come and go. The originators like PN, atomic, Reflex, etc will be around long before and after copycats like x racer. So everybody chill out. Yes they definetly are ripping off PN and now sadly reflex but what are you going to do? Not buy there product? Then don't. And get over it.

bermbuster
2012.01.17, 10:05 PM
Wow! I have to say, I felt sorry for x racer at first. But now its just sad. Now this isn't the first time someone ripped somebody else off. Like how GPM tires and PN tires were just alike in everyway including the mismatched batches of compounds. Or how GPM, 3Racing and R246 have the exact same mid mount motor pods. I can go on about a lot of copycat products but that is just the nature of this hobby. But now I think x racer took it to a whole new and sad level. I mean really? Golden horizon ripped off some of PN's stuff but atleast they ripped off stuff PN no longer makes or sells hardly at all. But I also have to say, is usually when this happens, they sell it for cheaper and can be a little easier for someone new to the hobby to get, which in turn gets more people into the hobby which is a good thing.
A perfect example is when I tried to get my local hobby shop into mini z's. The owner wanted to get the stuff like we mini z racers get, especially when I demo the cars for people who where curious. He tried to get PN to supply him but PN said he had to do a 1000 dollar buy in and that was not in the budget of the hobby shop owner for something he wanted to see if it would work. He sadly somehow ended up dealing with atomicmods who screwed him over and put a bad taste in his mouth. We tried to get him to go to reflex or the shop, but he never did and it eventually led to the end of mini z racing at my local hobby shop which led me to once again drive 70 or more miles out of my way to race again which is really getting old. Now if my hobby shop could stock these rip off parts and people would buy them and keep them interested in a hobby I like so much, then so be it. It keeps the hobby alive. What I'm trying to say is people like this come and go. The originators like PN, atomic, Reflex, etc will be around long before and after copycats like x racer. So everybody chill out. Yes they definetly are ripping off PN and now sadly reflex but what are you going to do? Not buy there product? Then don't. And get over it.
Just think where your racing would be if your LHS did the PN Buy in....:cool:

yasuji
2012.01.17, 10:07 PM
I think that if Kyosho wanted to, even the fit of the H-plate could eventually be patented. Grant, you keep talking about motorcycle tires, but even the pneumatic tire was once patented ;)

that was the point i was trying to get at ... and other company still make them...but hell thats way back now a couple pages atleast....lol:D