Sherrill squashes Sidewinder

tmlukes wrote:

So perhaps the two parties can work it out to everyone's benefit?

That's what we're hoping for.

Welcome to the tree climbing community! Let us know what you're up to with tree climbing, maybe introduce yourself in a new thread, or something like that.

EDIT: I see that you already did that
-moss

Culinarytracker wrote:

To avoid carrying awkward poles into the wilderness could it be designed to simply clamp onto things? It could strap or clamp onto branches, forearms, hefty sticks already laying in the woods, rail fences, etc... etc...

I've solved that for my system, I've built a custom pole that breaks down to three lightweight sections and extends out to 10 ft. when assembled. It's a modified hybrid of a standard Jameson pole and the extension pole that ships with the Sidewinder. The pole fits in my backpack and my rolling suitcase for air travel.

I think it all comes down to the slingshot head, the poles are off-the-shelf.

I agree with Tobe's points about the superior durability of the Big Shot. Not to mention less moving parts, less wear points.

The \"new\" Big Shot head is quite compact, I have the older design, it's a great head but is heavy and bulky for backpacking.

The Sidewinder system is generally more light duty (even if the head is a few ounces heavier than the Big Shot head), it uses smaller diameter latex tubing for instance. I would never put a Big Shot head on the pole that the Sidewinder uses.

The fold flat feature of the Sidewinder makes it very easy to put in my backpack.

I believe the Big Shot requires a heavier duty pole because of the greater thrust it develops (heavier tubing) and the greater force required to extend the sling, the weight advantage of the BS head may be lost because of the heavier duty pole required.

These are all points about the characteristics of the slingshots not so much about whether or not the Sidewinder is infringing the Big Shot patent. Anyway it's good analyze each system to get a better understanding of what they are.
-moss

moss wrote:
I believe the Big Shot requires a heavier duty pole because of the greater thrust it develops (heavier tubing) and the greater force required to extend the sling, the weight advantage of the BS head may be lost because of the heavier duty pole required.

I think Tobe hinted that the paint pole people don't really like the idea of being involved. Anyone know what the typical pre-launch tension is for the two units?

I'm virtually sure that you could put those photos in front of any seasoned mechanical designer and they would come up with another worthy design in about ten minutes. It's just a darn slingshot.

Davej wrote:

I think Tobe hinted that the paint pole people don't really like the idea of being involved. Anyone know what the typical pre-launch tension is for the two units?

It's highly variable depending on how far the sling is extended.

The latex tubing can be stretched 750% before failing, assuming that the tubing is in good condition.

The Jameson fiberglass poles are redundantly strong enough to support full sling extension with the Big Shot.

The Sidewinder pole hasn't failed for me or anyone else that I know of. There are component parts that I would rather see beefed up if it was possible, in particular the plastic collar and spring pin that locks the extension in place. They are strong enough as is but I wonder if there is a potential failure point after x number of load cycles.

Davej wrote:

I'm virtually sure that you could put those photos in front of any seasoned mechanical designer and they would come up with another worthy design in about ten minutes. It's just a darn slingshot.

Ha! That's similar to walking into a museum, looking at a Picasso and saying, my 4-year old could do that

A competent mechanical designer could iterate from what Tobe or Jeff has done. They haven't though, what actually gets accomplished is what counts.
-moss

moss wrote:
Ha! That's similar to walking into a museum, looking at a Picasso and saying, my 4-year old could do that

A competent mechanical designer could iterate from what Tobe or Jeff has done. They haven't though, what actually gets accomplished is what counts.

Well I don't want to belittle the effort that has gone into these units and especially the effort to fine-tune them, but don't a few rec climbers make their own every year? I planned to do so.

Haha...fire and me get along just fine...

It is the nature of communities to grow and split and come together again. I'm more encouraged by the fact that there is so much communication and talk over it than if there were none.

I hope I didn't add fuel to the fire, but did want to say hello and perhaps throw a different perspective in. Though, I can honestly say that both parties are behaving perfectly congenial and open, which is refreshing for me in discussions about patents and infringement and the like. I can tell you that normally the first communication anyone hears about from someone with a patent is a letter from the courts, so Tobe has taken a tack that I see rarely in patent owners. Kudos to him for that. And Jeff was very responsible in his research of the issues and communication back, so kudos as well.

All in all, I'd say, very cordial communication over a patent... Good luck to the parties and I hope that they are able to put it away when it is resolved and share a rope or something....

Thanks for the welcome Moss...

As for an introduction, yes, I started up another thread saying hi. I'm going to post some pictures of the \"Twins\" as I call them that really inspired me to learn a bit more about reaching higher and being safer. They are a pair of Douglas Firs that are about 3 feet diameter at chest height in my backyard. They are about 150 feet tall.