# Here It Is!!!!!!!!! A Karpiel Sneak Preview............



## Brian HCM#1 (Jan 18, 2004)

Here are a few pics of the new Karpiel Armageddon. Please keep in mind that this is only the prototype and some changes are being made to the actual production bikes due out within the next few months. As far as specifications go, they aren't available as of yet, please stay tuned..............................


----------



## The Tod Says What?! (Jan 20, 2007)

that's prety badass, looks lightER too.


----------



## rustyskills (Dec 23, 2007)

does look lighter... thing looks cool


----------



## paintballeerXC (Jun 9, 2005)

eeeeehhhhhhh

pretty


----------



## TerrorFirma (Sep 30, 2004)

might wanna be checking out the Trek patent on that linkage before you get too far into it. Just a friendly heads-up... hopefully you're golden but just a quick gander makes me wince a little.


----------



## DHidiot (Aug 5, 2004)

FINALLY the lower rocker angle has been changed and the shock has been put where it should have been in the first place. Looking a lot more legit now. Are the same changes being made to the Disco?


----------



## Redhit (Jan 24, 2004)

TerrorFirma said:


> might wanna be checking out the Trek patent on that linkage before you get too far into it. Just a friendly heads-up... hopefully you're golden but just a quick gander makes me wince a little.


What are you talking about? Trek has a patent on a four bar modified single pivot. This was one of the original VPP design.


----------



## swash (Jan 24, 2008)

Redhit said:


> What are you talking about? Trek has a patent on a four bar modified single pivot. This was one of the original VPP design.


Back in the mid to late '90s trek and fisher had a few DH protos that looked a lot like that. I seem to remember a bright yellow fisher team dh bike with a similar 4 bar setup. I think thats the trek patent that he was talking about. Couldn't find a pic of it online, but I'm sure someone on here has one. Anyway that Karpiel looks sweet, but you might wana look into the trek thing before you get a nasty letter from the big T.


----------



## Nick. (Dec 19, 2003)

apparently there are a few people that don't know the history behind Karpiel.

The new Army frame looks darn good from here.


----------



## Bulldog (Jan 13, 2004)

Is Jan involved this time around?


----------



## Brian HCM#1 (Jan 18, 2004)

DHidiot said:


> FINALLY the lower rocker angle has been changed and the shock has been put where it should have been in the first place. Looking a lot more legit now. Are the same changes being made to the Disco?


Yes, changes are being made to the Disco, from the drawings I've seen it looks great. I can't release those.


----------



## Brian HCM#1 (Jan 18, 2004)

Bulldog said:


> Is Jan involved this time around?


He is involved in the design of the frames.


----------



## tacubaya (Jan 27, 2006)

Not a fan.


----------



## The Tod Says What?! (Jan 20, 2007)

TerrorFirma said:


> might wanna be checking out the Trek patent on that linkage before you get too far into it. Just a friendly heads-up... hopefully you're golden but just a quick gander makes me wince a little.


if any patent was checked out it'd be Canfield's suspension, it looks alot more like a Canfield than a Trek


----------



## Uncle Cliffy (Jul 7, 2006)

Where's the Risse Bigfoot and dual 24's? :lol: 

J.K. Looks neat.


----------



## ryan_daugherty (Oct 8, 2006)

rustyskills said:


> does look lighter... thing looks cool


still looks balls heavy.


----------



## 317000 (Mar 2, 2007)

Brian HCM#1 said:


> He is involved in the design of the frames.


Sure hope he's not involved with business decisions. Screwed a lot of people.


----------



## Brian HCM#1 (Jan 18, 2004)

ryan_daugherty said:


> still looks balls heavy.


It will be lighter than the original Armageddon. FYI the original Armageddon only weighed in at 10.5 lbs w/shock, pretty damn light if I say so myself.


----------



## Brian HCM#1 (Jan 18, 2004)

dowst said:


> Sure hope he's not involved with business decisions. Screwed a lot of people.


Can you please provide me the names of those people? Or is this purely e-rumor, cause that's what you've heard? We are encourging people to come forward if they had frames/swingarms etc at Karpiel when they closed back in 2004.


----------



## DHidiot (Aug 5, 2004)

Brian HCM#1 said:


> Can you please provide me the names of those people? Or is this purely e-rumor, cause that's what you've heard? We are encourging people to come forward if they had frames/swingarms etc at Karpiel when they closed back in 2004.


I know of a couple - could you provide some contact info for me to forward?


----------



## TerrorFirma (Sep 30, 2004)

Redhit said:


> What are you talking about? Trek has a patent on a four bar modified single pivot. This was one of the original VPP design.


Patent #6,203,042
Its a 4bar link for sure where the shock is driven by the lower link AND the first pivot is above and infront of the BB shell, AND the upper links 4th pivot is above and infront of the lower links mainframe. Thats basically the quick and dirty of the patent.
I think it was PDC racings 825 frame that had to move the shock to the rearswingarm rather then the lower link after they got a letter from the legal dudes over at Trek.
Karpiels of old that i've seen had the shocks driven off the upper link.

Basically the dudes at Karpiel need to seriously look into this because if they do start selling these things as it could mean all the profit has to go to Trek and they could also recover all their legal fees from Karpiel... I figure a small company couldn't weather that and they'd just disappear again.

This is the kind of stuff we've had to navigate through here at Banshee when designing bikes. With the DW link, VPP, Treks, and a host of other patents all on the multilink bikes it gives designers very little room to work with. If you don't also consider patents, along with wheel paths, and rising rates, etc then you could get burned.... look at even recently IBEX, Cove, that have spent the time and money developing bikes only to find out they can't sell them.


----------



## suicidebomber (Feb 10, 2007)

nice, still looks like a frickin tank. And it needs a uber long fork and uber fat tires.

Are the headtube gussets changed? It looks kinda different from the older 'geddon. 

Just get Bender to ride one of those tanks again and it will all be nice.


----------



## Brian HCM#1 (Jan 18, 2004)

In regards to the patent, I do know the shock positioning is way different. I'm looking further into this matter.


----------



## builttoride (Jan 15, 2007)

Brian HCM#1 said:


> In regards to the patent, I do know the shock positioning is way different. I'm looking further into this matter.


Hope it works out man! I hate it when the bigger companies can send the lawyers in to bully smaller companies like us! A few months ago we (Banshee) got an official lawyers letter from another (bigger) bike company claiming we had infringed their patent.. it was just scare mongering, but we had to change the design as a result.


----------



## Brian HCM#1 (Jan 18, 2004)

In regard to the patent issue. Jan had a similar design back in 1993, here is an article in MTB action from Sept 1995. That patent was filed in 1999. Karpiel should be okay.


----------



## swash (Jan 24, 2008)

I hate to be Debbie downer, but that looks more like a single pivot with a linkage actuated shock, I the whole rear isn't shown so I could be wrong. I knew that linkage rang a bell, check out page 74 in the July 2007 decline and you'll see a fisher dh bike from the late 90's that most likely has the linkage patent in question.


----------



## Brian HCM#1 (Jan 18, 2004)

Here is a close up pic.


----------



## wirly (Jun 15, 2004)

Interesting find. I wonder if Cortina got away with it because they used a linkage between the lower link and the shock, thus not having the shock directly attached to the lower link. If so, maybe Jan could do that.



TerrorFirma said:


> Patent #6,203,042
> Its a 4bar link for sure where the shock is driven by the lower link AND the first pivot is above and infront of the BB shell, AND the upper links 4th pivot is above and infront of the lower links mainframe. Thats basically the quick and dirty of the patent.
> I think it was PDC racings 825 frame that had to move the shock to the rearswingarm rather then the lower link after they got a letter from the legal dudes over at Trek.
> Karpiels of old that i've seen had the shocks driven off the upper link.


----------



## Brian HCM#1 (Jan 18, 2004)

The new lower link has an adjutable cam, just like on the old upper links. So it's not a 100% fixed shock as all the others, it's adjustable.


----------



## Freerydejunky (Sep 21, 2006)

rough price of the frame? I know its alittle far off but just wondering.


----------



## gruczniak (Jun 22, 2005)

looks nice. Waited a bit for come back, if they will not go too far with the price they have a good customer = me.


----------



## =ChrisB= (Aug 8, 2006)

*gets out KY*

**** now Wil's gonna be bragin up n down n left n right about this ****. 

But that looks........ poo pooing bad ASS!


----------



## Brian HCM#1 (Jan 18, 2004)

motormonkeyr6 said:


> rough price of the frame? I know its alittle far off but just wondering.


Price has not been set yet, but I'll guesstimate between $2999-$3300 for the Armageddon. The original Armageddons sold for $3000.


----------



## shredder111 (Jul 8, 2005)

Very nice!!!! How much?


----------



## gruczniak (Jun 22, 2005)

Brian HCM#1 said:


> Price has not been set yet, but I'll guesstimate between $2999-$3300 for the Armageddon. The original Armageddons sold for $3000.


Opps thats high


----------



## dhtahoe (Mar 18, 2004)

Brian HCM#1 said:


> Can you please provide me the names of those people? Or is this purely e-rumor, cause that's what you've heard? We are encourging people to come forward if they had frames/swingarms etc at Karpiel when they closed back in 2004.


Sherwood Gibson
Ventana Mountain Bikes
916.631.0544

Nevada Board of Taxation and Equalization

Nevada State Labor Board

Sierra Pacific Power

IRS

Shall I go on?


----------



## Brian HCM#1 (Jan 18, 2004)

dhtahoe said:


> Sherwood Gibson
> Ventana Mountain Bikes
> 916.631.0544
> 
> ...


Have Sherwood contact Karpiel, or he can contact me.


----------



## Bulldog (Jan 13, 2004)

Brian HCM#1 said:


> Have Sherwood contact Karpiel, or he can contact me.


Brian, it's a valiant thing you're doing to try and straighten out a known crook, but couldn't you just make penpals with a convicted felon or something instead? Find something unrelated to and unable to tarnish your business.


----------



## 1soulrider (Jan 21, 2004)

dhtahoe said:


> Sherwood Gibson
> Ventana Mountain Bikes
> 916.631.0544
> 
> ...


Didn't he leave owing Karl Rogne quite a bit of money as well?
Now would be a great time to reimburse him, it would help pay for his cancer treatments.


----------



## Big Mike (Oct 26, 2005)

Bulldog said:


> Brian, it's a valiant thing you're doing to try and straighten out a known crook, but couldn't you just make penpals with a convicted felon or something instead? Find something unrelated to and unable to tarnish your business.


I won't go so far as to call Jan a crook. He's not in this solely to rip people off, he just lacks sound business principles is all. I would'nt have been able to race 7-8 years ago if it weren't for Jan being willing to "sponsor" me - or in other words, hook me up with an Armageddon on the cheap. He's a good guy at heart.

Brian you're not the first person I've heard of stepping up to help out. I sincerely hope you can turn things around over there...


----------



## =ChrisB= (Aug 8, 2006)

^^word.


----------



## Secace (Sep 8, 2004)

Nice!:thumbsup: :thumbsup:


----------



## Gravity Assist (Aug 18, 2007)

Sick!!!


----------



## Bulldog (Jan 13, 2004)

Big Mike said:


> I won't go so far as to call Jan a crook. He's not in this solely to rip people off, he just lacks sound business principles is all.


He's either fully business-retarded (and thus should never be allowed around the books ever again) or he's intentionally a crook. Either way, why should anyone chance it again? Giving out a hookup or two can't wash out all the negatives.


----------



## dhtahoe (Mar 18, 2004)

Brian HCM#1 said:


> Have Sherwood contact Karpiel, or he can contact me.


I gave you the info YOU call him!


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Brian HCM#1 said:


> In regard to the patent issue. Jan had a similar design back in 1993, here is an article in MTB action from Sept 1995. That patent was filed in 1999. Karpiel should be okay.


Did you fail to notice that it's a picture of a single-swingarm (monopivot) bike? Not the same.


----------



## HOFFMAN223 (Aug 24, 2004)

Redhit said:


> What are you talking about? Trek has a patent on a four bar modified single pivot. This was one of the original VPP design.


TREK sucks a fat bone and that name should never come up on this forum. I can't think of one manufacturer that has stagnated in the MTB world as much as Trek. Yes, I love the fact that some of them are handbuilt in the good ol' USA, but when small manufacturers that have 1/50th the capitol that Trek has and they are constantly pushing the envelope of suspension designs (Canfield, Yeti, Commencal, etc.) and Trek keeps coming up with the old faux-bar year after year after year, well, I have no respect for that. In fact, I just heard that C-dale just became a member of the Pacific group.....this should have happened to Trek instead!


----------



## trail'R trash (Mar 15, 2008)

HOFFMAN223 said:


> ...when small manufacturers that have 1/50th the capitol that Trek has and they are constantly pushing the envelope of suspension designs (Canfield, Yeti, Commencal, etc.) and Trek keeps coming up with the old faux-bar year after year after year, well, I have no respect for that.


Canfield I might give you - but they haven't really done anything ground-breakingly new. Good stuff, yes, but not ground-breaking. What have Yeti and Commencal done, though? yeti with their uber-complicated slider bike with a bazillion bolts and creaks gallore? A for effort, c minus for execution. And the rest of the yeti's are pure faux-bar. Big whoop. Commencal has nothing but linkage driven single pivots and faux-bars. How's that pushing the envelope?


----------



## flymybike (Jan 6, 2004)

Wait until you ride our new line.


----------



## rollertoaster (Jun 11, 2007)

Hopefully they've learned to weld the bikes together straight by now. My seat tube is crooked as hell on my Army. Oh, and it LOOKS like it might be a 150mm rear hub now, thats a good thing.


----------



## Big Mike (Oct 26, 2005)

Hey Brian - would you be able to forward me a copy of the VRS article?

A couple friends of mine in Salt Lake still have VRS's...


----------



## Dusty Bottoms (Jan 14, 2004)

Welcome to 1998.


Looks like the same old tired boat anchor.


----------



## =ChrisB= (Aug 8, 2006)

Dusty Bottoms said:


> Welcome to 1998.
> 
> Looks like the same old tired boat anchor.


looks can be deceiving... I've had reports from some people aboot the new rides...


----------



## boogenman (Sep 22, 2006)

Dusty Bottoms said:


> Welcome to 1998.
> 
> Looks like the same old tired boat anchor.


I agree! 
Karpiel building bikes again......


----------



## mbcbulldog (Dec 10, 2006)

for Dh race,looks like more light now...


----------



## Brian HCM#1 (Jan 18, 2004)

Dusty Bottoms said:


> Welcome to 1998.
> 
> Looks like the same old tired boat anchor.


What do you mean? Are they heavy? Have you ever riden one?


----------



## Brian HCM#1 (Jan 18, 2004)

Big Mike said:


> Hey Brian - would you be able to forward me a copy of the VRS article?
> 
> A couple friends of mine in Salt Lake still have VRS's...


I don't have the full article


----------



## ScaryJerry (Jan 12, 2004)

God damn I hate when companies run by morons get a second chance to screw over those lured in by wonky suspension and silly designs.

As for the patent infringement, that prototype looks exactly like the drawing in Trek's patent


----------



## Brian HCM#1 (Jan 18, 2004)

ScaryJerry said:


> God damn I hate when companies run by morons get a second chance to screw over those lured in by wonky suspension and silly designs.
> 
> As for the patent infringement, that prototype looks exactly like the drawing in Trek's patent


You were screwed over by Karpiel?

so I guess this one is a copy too


----------



## mtb_biker (Jan 27, 2004)

Brian HCM#1 said:


> You were screwed over by Karpiel?
> 
> so I guess this one is a copy too


Did you read the patent? While most of us aren't patent attorney's, attempting to point fingers on something you clearly don't know much about doesn't help your case and is pretty much unprofessional.



> The rear suspension bicycle claim where in the seat stay link is pivotable about a second pivot point on the frame, *said second pivot point being above and forward of the first pivot*.
> 
> The rear suspension of bicycle claim 10 wherein the frame includes a down tube which extends *upwardly and forwardly from the bottom bracket* to the head tube, and the shock absorber extends from the chain stay link upwardly and forwardly above a lower portion of the downtube.


If you look at the Canfield, the upper pivot location is different (not in front of the first pivot) from the Trek, and the upper pivot is not connected to the downtube. The Karpiel one however appears to be in front of the lower pivot and is attached to the downtube, which the Trek patent pretty clearly states this as its location.


----------



## mbcbulldog (Dec 10, 2006)

Brian HCM#1 said:


> You were screwed over by Karpiel?
> 
> so I guess this one is a copy too


this picture I'ts to small i can't see anything,do you have another one litle bit bigger?


----------



## ScaryJerry (Jan 12, 2004)

Yeah, it all has to do with the location of the pivots relative to each other. The Canfield has it's upper link pivot nowhere near similar to the Trek patent. I'll talk to my inside rep in Waterloo though and I'm sure he'll have someone get in touch with the new geniuses at Karpiel.


----------



## Brian HCM#1 (Jan 18, 2004)

ScaryJerry said:


> Yeah, it all has to do with the location of the pivots relative to each other. The Canfield has it's upper link pivot nowhere near similar to the Trek patent. I'll talk to my inside rep in Waterloo though and I'm sure he'll have someone get in touch with the new geniuses at Karpiel.


So what's your problem? You seem to have quite a thing for Karpiel, why? I'm not here to start a fight. I don't know about all the logistics on what's patent infringing or what. How much do you read into a design? Is it shock placement, linkage placement? From what I'm trying to understand slight changes can make the difference. So is it fair to say that the measurement should be identical between the Trek and Karpiel to be infringing on the patent? If the Karpiel link is 15mm further with a different shock angle, does that make enough of a difference? You seem to be the patent expert, please explain.


----------



## flymybike (Jan 6, 2004)

Brian, it does appear to be infringing but the only way for you to proceed is to read the patent, understand it and figure out if it does infringe and if so what you need to do to get around it. I like what you've got there and I hate ******** patents that stop people from bettering the end product. good luck


----------



## I.RIDE.A.ARMY! (Apr 6, 2008)

sick bike! I love the upper & lower cams. i hope it still has 9" to 11" of travel.


----------



## 8664 (Oct 17, 2005)

dont buy trek!!


----------



## Brian HCM#1 (Jan 18, 2004)

I.RIDE.A.ARMY! said:


> sick bike! I love the upper & lower cams. i hope it still has 9" to 11" of travel.


Specs should be available very soon.


----------



## 317000 (Mar 2, 2007)

I.RIDE.A.ARMY! said:


> sick bike! I love the upper & lower cams. i hope it still has 9" to 11" of travel.


Oh me too! I also hope it comes with the 1:9476983746 leverage ratio too!


----------



## Pau11y (Oct 15, 2004)

Brian, remember me? I had the Army w/ the head tube welded on crooked when Ventana was doing the welding for Jan? So for those of you who were so called "screwed" by Jan on round 1, here's the short version of my story:
I went thru 3 frames w/ Jan back in 2001, but it was still crooked. I rode the bike, but it caused too much stiction in my fork. By the time I got around to try and get another from Jan (he had agreed to do the fix for $200.00 with a new powder coat), Karpeil Designs was out of business. So I sat on the frame. Since it was crooked, I didn't feel right trying to sell it...say on ebay. I actually contacted Ventana and offered to pay for a fix, but they wouldn't even touch it - didn't even return my first couple of calls! I understand their position, but so much for taking pride in your work; I'll never recommend Ventana to anyone in the future. Anyway, I've been in communication w/ Jacek at the new Karpiel in Poland for the past year. He took my old frame and was going to honor the original agreement I had w/ Jan. But the fix didn't pass their QC so he's sending me a new 2007 built (2001 model year) frame for free. I haven't gotten it yet. But when I do, I'll post pics. I'd say, those with problems should contact Jacek directly - GREAT guy and will keep you posted on things!


----------



## SHIVER ME TIMBERS (Jan 12, 2004)

as a company....will they honor old warranty issues???


----------



## Chad_Money (Aug 20, 2007)

*sHOCKING*

Check out the Cove Shocker linkage..looks exactly the same..big deal, I think it lok smokin hot and hope everything goes good for you Brian.


----------



## Brian HCM#1 (Jan 18, 2004)

Pau11y said:


> Brian, remember me? I had the Army w/ the head tube welded on crooked when Ventana was doing the welding for Jan? So for those of you who were so called "screwed" by Jan on round 1, here's the short version of my story:
> I went thru 3 frames w/ Jan back in 2001, but it was still crooked. I rode the bike, but it caused too much stiction in my fork. By the time I got around to try and get another from Jan (he had agreed to do the fix for $200.00 with a new powder coat), Karpeil Designs was out of business. So I sat on the frame. Since it was crooked, I didn't feel right trying to sell it...say on ebay. I actually contacted Ventana and offered to pay for a fix, but they wouldn't even touch it - didn't even return my first couple of calls! I understand their position, but so much for taking pride in your work; I'll never recommend Ventana to anyone in the future. Anyway, I've been in communication w/ Jacek at the new Karpiel in Poland for the past year. He took my old frame and was going to honor the original agreement I had w/ Jan. But the fix didn't pass their QC so he's sending me a new 2007 built (2001 model year) frame for free. I haven't gotten it yet. But when I do, I'll post pics. I'd say, those with problems should contact Jacek directly - GREAT guy and will keep you posted on things!


I remember you. Glad to hear you're being taken care of. Please let me know when you get your replacement frame.


----------



## Pau11y (Oct 15, 2004)

Brian, are you the one Jacek was talking about when he responded to my question of the new rear triangle mating to the older front? Also, do you know if the boys changed the BB shell width of the new old model at all or is it still a 68mm? I've got a Diabolus DH Exo I want to try and run on this frame with a 34T e.13 SRS. The crank is a 68/73mm.
Hum...maybe I'll sell the new old one and get one of the new ones; they make me mushy in my pants! Got any bro-deals?


----------



## Brian HCM#1 (Jan 18, 2004)

Pau11y said:


> Brian, are you the one Jacek was talking about when he responded to my question of the new rear triangle mating to the older front? Also, do you know if the boys changed the BB shell width of the new old model at all or is it still a 68mm? I've got a Diabolus DH Exo I want to try and run on this frame with a 34T e.13 SRS. The crank is a 68/73mm.
> Hum...maybe I'll sell the new old one and get one of the new ones; they make me mushy in my pants! Got any bro-deals?


No it's someone else, but yes the new 150mm swingarm will work on the older frames. The BB on the older style is still 73mm, new ones are 83mm.


----------



## zx6roxy (Nov 20, 2007)

Verrry purty


----------



## rep_1969 (Mar 25, 2004)

Oh, this thread is back again . . . . . well while it is, I went to the Karpiel home page to snoop around. While I was there I found this, pretty sweet video.

Go here: http://www.karpiel.com/multimedia/clips.htm and click the "watch it now" link for the first video.


----------

