Im thinking of building some locost chassis's to order, later on this year also doing brackets and panels ect for locosts and was wondering if there is any interest? Prices will be very competitive and options of powder coating, galvanizing ect will be available.

Im a laser profiler/welder/fabricator by trade so the items will be done to a high standard and tested before any will be sold.

Only gauging interest at the minute and i will register as a trader if i get enough good feedback.

Cheers Craig.

[Edited on 17/2/07 by CraigJ]

I'd imagine there'd be more interest in the new chassis, (Haynes se7en) based around the Sierra as a donor TBH.

sorry lol thats the one i meant.

good idea but the problem is im not sure how many people build locost chassis to the book.

I wouldn't do that if I were you.

Myself and Martin Keenan own the design rights to the chassis, the book specifically prohibits construction for commercial purposes, and Haynes are ready to protect those rights in law.

Chris

So you wont be able to buy a locost chassis anymore then.....that seems utterly ridiculous. Oli.

This doesn't affect Locost chassis in any way.

MK Engineering will be selling Haynes Roadster chassis, for those who don't wish to make their own, the design remains our intellectural property.

Chris

quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisg
I wouldn't do that if I were you.

Myself and Martin Keenan own the design rights to the chassis, the book specifically prohibits construction for commercial purposes, and Haynes are ready to protect those rights in law.

Chris

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisg
This doesn't affect Locost chassis in any way.

MK Engineering will be selling Haynes Roadster chassis, for those who don't wish to make their own, the design remains our intellectural property.
Chris

---

Hi all of the points above are what haynes used when westfield try to sue ron backed by haynes.

And haynes won.

cheers matt

[Edited on 3/3/07 by procomp]

quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisg
I wouldn't do that if I were you.

Myself and Martin Keenan own the design rights to the chassis, the book specifically prohibits construction for commercial purposes, and Haynes are ready to protect those rights in law.

Chris

---

The way i see it, MK are the only ones allowed to sell you parts if you don't feel confident enough in making them yourself.

I thought single source supply was something Trading Standards took a very dim view of.

Even car giants Ford, for example cant enforce it, thats why you can by pattern parts to fit your car.

Hey even our local school has had a letter from trading standards saying that it is investigating schools that specify where you buy school unifoms from, you know, like buying a blazer form this shop only.

Apparently it's about fair trading, and allowing the consumer to have a choice.

Be interesting to see waht happens if other people start making "New Book" parts.

Just my 10p worth.

Ta

[Edited on 4/3/07 by bebot]

So what happens if I get a mate to help me build it cos I cant weld up to the right standard. He is a trained Welder and can do the job correctly. I buy all the steel, he helps me cut and weld it up. He's a good mate, so If I bung him some money for a drink or three for helping out.

Would that be incorrect. (I wont use the word illegal) in the sense / terms of the above discussion.

Surely Commercial Use is when someone makes a product and puts it on the market.
How does it go when you get someone who is NOT running a buisness to make something and then you bung him a few quid.
Thats like buying his skills not the chassis.

Oh Well.. the discussion is interesting. Its not really relavent to me. The new chassis is wider... but still not wide enough for me.
Yes.... I'm Viento Man

quote:

---

Originally posted by wilkingj
So what happens if I get a mate to help me build it cos I cant weld up to the right standard. He is a trained Welder and can do the job correctly. I buy all the steel, he helps me cut and weld it up. He's a good mate, so If I bung him some money for a drink or three for helping out.

Would that be incorrect. (I wont use the word illegal) in the sense / terms of the above discussion.

Surely Commercial Use is when someone makes a product and puts it on the market.
How does it go when you get someone who is NOT running a buisness to make something and then you bung him a few quid.
Thats like buying his skills not the chassis.

Oh Well.. the discussion is interesting. Its not really relavent to me. The new chassis is wider... but still not wide enough for me.
Yes.... I'm Viento Man

---

It is like music, I guess: you used to be able to copy whatever you wanted, and at least in Canada, you paid more for blank cassettes to cover the "lost revenue" the record companies claimed they would lose. The resulting material could only be used by you and never sold. And like music, everybody is ripping off the original, much like Keef and Chuck Berry.

I really don't care if they actually have IP rights or just think they do, because If I decide to use their plans it will only be for my own car but I certainly won't be buying the chassis from MK now.

I just find it distasteful that they have basically taken the work of a lot of different people and used bits and pieces of different chassis, change a few dimensions and try to pass it off as if it's their own Intellectual Property in some way.

Nothing they have done is unique that I can see, its just a rehash of everything we have seen before. Making a section longer here or shorter there does not constitute originality.

Just saying so in a book doesn't make it true, I would like to see either the Design Right or Patent documentation.

I mean what prevents me from doing the same thing. I could write a manual, create a chassis design which I change the dimensions of the tubing slightly, add a piece here and there or whatever and release the whole thing under a creative commons license so anyone can use it.

without having read the book yet, how can you know how much they have modified the design? Maybe there are novel additions. There certainly is space for improvements in the existing designs.

quote:

---

Myself and Martin Keenan own the design rights to the chassis, the book specifically prohibits construction for commercial purposes, and Haynes are ready to protect those rights in law.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoelP
without having read the book yet, how can you know how much they have modified the design? Maybe there are novel additions. There certainly is space for improvements in the existing designs.

---

quote:

---

this post by Haynes themself may clear it up for you.

---

This was on the website off Mk Developments

"Following on From the previous success with the Mk Indy, we are now back in the 2 seater market with the new Haynes Roadster"

So they are now in competition with the Indy

[Edited on 4/3/07 by sept]

I know what you mean by "distateful" I think.

It appears to me that they are clearly riding on Lotus, Westfield and Ron's coat-tails, they will sell plenty of the books, but then to threaten to sue people who start up making parts or whatever..

Takes the wee in my opinion. If it was an out-and-out new design then that would be a slightly different matter.

They'd have a lot of trouble enforcing that in court.

A search through the archives on this site would show pretty much every concievable variation on the '7' style theme possible. Wishbones, chassis, body variations. They're all here somewhere.

Any copying is on the side of the Haynes thing. As has been said, an amalgum of many design options that comes under the heading' Already done' or 'Previously Done.'

The Threat is just hot air and chest beating.

If you can prove a change of 5% or more, (that's one part in 20!) then they have 'no case', as the court would say, anyway. A few mm here and there, and you're free and clear.

Cheers,
Syd.

Ron's book (in my 2nd edition copy) has the same "not for commercial use" warning in it.

From memory, it suggests that the book plans/procedure is licensed to you for a particular use (ie a home build and not commercial.) A bit like a software license.

I don't have the exact wording to hand, but have a look if you have your own copy nearby - what is the difference between that and the new Haynes book?

Yeh, here it is on the page before the contents page in bold:

"The plans, drawings and information in this book, and the name Locost, are for private use only and not for commericial enterprise."

Presumably Haynes own the rights to their name, so would legitimately own the rights to the name "Haynes Roadster". As such, they should be able to control the use of the name.

However, it sounds like they may not be able to stop someone selling parts (as replacement parts?) or kit.

I understand Ford are trying the same stunt with the Mustang name, threatening to sue anyone who uses the name to sell non-original parts, or even to provide maintenance or restoration.

The difference is that Ford paid for the design from scratch - Haynes have at best refined an existing design.

There seems to have been a misunderstanding.

My original post wasn’t intended as some sort of threat, I was just pointing out the wording of the disclaimer in the book. Haynes are not threatening anyone with legal action and, yes, the wording is very similar to the wording appearing in the 2nd Edition of “Build Your Own Sports Car for as little as £250”.

Of course I think that a year of my work should have some sort of protection, but I was more worried about forum members being open to legal action.

Everyone involved with the Roadster is a car nut at heart, and I can’t imagine anyone getting into trouble.

I hope this clears the situation up

Cheers

Chris

quote:

---

Of course I think that a year of my work should have some sort of protection

---

I agree as well and I also support the notion that if a company wanted to start fabbing frames to your the new book specs, as a matter of decency if nothing elsr that some sort of licensing fee would be in order,perhaps the cost of a book per frame.

I do however find the whole copywriting notion a bit ironic given the origins and sorted history of the product.....

What 'protection' did Ron get when all the firms jumped onto the 'locost' band wagon?

I appreciate the sentiments behind both sides of this discussion but I rather than people worrying about who is making a quick buck out of Colin Chapmans basic work I think we should thank Chris G for providing us with a new reference against which we can judge our own work.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dnmalc
I appreciate the sentiments behind both sides of this discussion but I rather than people worrying about who is making a quick buck out of Colin Chapmans basic work I think we should thank Chris G for providing us with a new reference against which we can judge our own work.

---

quote:

---

We have all broken laws of copyright/IP/DR etc etc. ]

---

One way around the whole copyright issue would be for a group of people to produce an "open source" chassis based on the idea that anyone could do whatever they wanted with it. And have a licensing statement to that effect on the project to start with.

It shouldn't be too hard a job to come up with something sufficiently different to demonstrate enough originality to avoid legal complaints from the rest of the industry.

Personally I think the 7 concept is so used & abused now that it's basically public domain knowledge anyway.

Or maybe someone would like to donate a design to the world?

BTW There are other 'open source' cars on the web but they're mostly based on whacky ideas and don't get finished.

With all due respect for everyone involved in this meandering thread...

Claiming this and claiming that without authentic legal documentation to back up those claims is for all practicle purposes p!ssing into the wind. If this represents a truly unique original design and if the the author feels threatened by others who might wish to capitalize on it for commercial gain then why didn't the creator apply for patent protection before disclosuer?

My guess is, as a result of preliminary patenting process it became clear to the author(s) that there was no basis for claiming originality beyond the far less stringent requirement associated with a claim of copywrite protection associated with the written document (book) created.

Without a legal classification to the contrary (patent or patent or patent pending) it seems obvious that claiming any protection beyond the printed documents' copywrite is wishfull thinking on the part of the author(s). If there were more protection available to them, the author(s) would, I'm confident, be the first to point that fact out.

Without that legal documentation I suggest that you are feel free to copy, fabricate and market commercially the designs to whatever degree you wish. Just don't copy photographs, reprint text or state verbatum from the book without giving the author(s) their rightful due, including footnotes and references.

Dick Bear

I agree, but I don't believe it is possible to patent a chassis design unless it has some aspect that is novel. A steel spaceframe chassis isn't going to be patentable IMO there is way too much prior art back from ww2 aircraft onwards.

(Not a patent lawyer, but been on too many courses covering them )

As mentioned somewhere above you could register the design, but that is only for non-functional things like material finish, and decorative shapes.

Ok, wish id not started this thread now. Didnt mean to cause all this fuss.

Sorry to anyone who ive upset by starting this thread.

Craig.

You'd better blinking go and make a bunch of frames now to atone for it

IPR is a minefield in itself and there are a lot of lawyers that make a lot of money just dealing with it. I doubt anyone on here has the appropriate level of knowledge to claim one way or the other.

Syds got it right though, 5% is the change you need to prove its different to something else.

Isnt this a load of fuss about nothing?
All a chassis needs to be is something stiff enough to hang correctly designed suspension on?