We mentioned the scooter patent the other day and wondered along with others whether this meant the Honda Griffon was headed for production. One of our readers dropped a link in the comments pointing to this radial engine powered motorcycle patent and asked whether patents mean imminent production. A great question and it would seem the answer is patents mean no such thing, but my question addressing this particular patent is why it was granted in the first place. Radial engine powered motorcycles had already been built long before this patent was granted. What was different or special about this application that gives it some exclusive right to the design? Number of cylinders, perhaps? Interesting.
This patent application was filed July 14, 1999 and granted November 21, 2000, while the Redrup, for instance, was built as far back as 1919. There’s also the Megola which has the engine in the front wheel. Maybe I’m missing something and there is a reason this is unique but this patent application seems a little late to the party.
Great link, Tom! Thanks!
Link: Radial Patent
viva-la-diff says
I believe the diference is Russell in Kansas filing an “ornamental design” as opposed to Honda filing patends in Japan, the USA, and Europe for a motorcycle where the patent application specifies details such as engine mounting, frame design, suspension components, etc.
If nothing else, this patent secures the engine mounting and frame design for the flat-four 750 engine even if the wild body work isn’t wrapped around it. The actual production version of this bike may simply look like a small Gold Wing.
viva-la-diff says
A few excerpts from the patent:
“Although the following disclosure offered for public dissemination is detailed to ensure adequacy and aid in understanding the invention, this is not intended to prejudice that purpose of a patent which is to cover each new inventive concept disclosed therein no matter how it may later be disguised by variations in form or additions of further improvements.”
“The monocoque frame (“mono” of “monocoque” means a single, “coque” means a shell) is a frame not formed into a pipe frame but formed of a plate-shaped member for receiving a load. The monocoque frame has a structure in which rigidity can be secured, and weight reduction achieved.”
Alejandro says
I don’t know where viva-la-diff took that information from the patent, because design patent 434,047 says no such thing. Is there another patent as well that you are looking at?
Anyways, this is a design patent, which is an extremely different document than a utility patent. When people think of patents, they usually are thinking of utility patents, on some real invention. This has a D before the number, meaning it is a design patent. These are really only good for one thing, stopping knockoffs. The picture is really the patent, meaning that another company can build radial engine motorcycles, but they can’t make it look exactly like this one. It is really only protecting the ornamental design, not the overall concept. A utility patent would protect WAY more, but then again, it has already been done, thus the only option is a utility patent.
People love to claim they have patents on their stuff, and then when you look into it, it is a design patent which is worthless 99% of the time.
Also, kneeslider is right, that having a patent means nothing with regard to likelihood of production. I would say that about 95% of patents never have a production version commercialized.
viva-la-diff says
RE: “I don’t know where viva-la-diff took that information from the patent…”
Sorry, should read “A few excerpts from the Griffon patent” as it was a continuation of the previous post pointing out that a number of inventive concepts relating to the frame, suspension, and mounting for the flat-four engine of the Griffon concept were disclosed.
viva says
RE: “I don’t know where viva-la-diff took that information from the patent…”
Refers to the Griffon patent and was a continuation of my previous post which appears to have been deleted.
I previously pointed out that the difference betwwn the “ornamental design” filed by Russell in Kansas and the one filed by Honda in Japan and the USA is tha Honda’s patent includes specifics on engine mounting, suspension, frame design, etc. for a motorcycle with a 750 flat-four engine. As I mentioned in my deleted post the final production version may simply look like a baby Gold Wing.
kneeslider says
Quick note – apologies to viva, the spam filter is working overtime today and some of his comments got flagged. That also explains some of his repetition when I unflagged them.
Skeet says
I agree that the interesting part of Honda’s patent application is the monocoque frame for the flat-4 engine. It seems a realistic speculation to consider that they may actually be planning to build a small Gold Wing with standard manual transmission. Compare Honda’s automatic transmission Zodia concept that morphed into the Honda Rune. Also, the patent indicates a left-hand clutch which may be a typo or may indicate that the “scooter plastic” is a ruse to distract from what they are actually planning. Personally, I think there would be a market for a smaller lighter-weight version of the Gold Wing with a flat-4 rather than the flat-6 of the daddy-version. Too bad, because I actually like the Griffon.
Willie Schmitz says
There’s a market for the Honda scooter where the radial engine motorcycle is not very practical and doubtful it would ever make production status.
The Pacific Coast was really cool and practical motorcycle. A little to much competition for the Gold Wing. Maybe something between the two (scooter and Pcaific Coast) would work.