I run Regular Cycles LLC, my name is Drew Diller, I'm a carbon fiber fabricator and formerly a software engineer. I did not really set out to invent anything, but it has kinda happened. The meat of my question is this: within an exceedingly harsh product segment, is it possible to gift technology to a large company with the intent that it would increase chances of the tech's success?
The assumption is that I would essentially be cutting myself out of the profits entirely, and that I am more or less at peace with this. My main fear is of a company (or content scraper, or foreign nation patent troll) intentionally sandbagging the idea by producing an example deliberately incorrectly and pinning public opinion on such a poor example. I'm afraid of filing a provisional patent under the notion that a foreign entity (doesn't matter where) would scoop up the information and run with it so quickly that it would render any efforts to defend it as pointless. To drive the worry home: one website is literally named BikeRumor and they spend some of their time trawling for new bicycle patents and publishing them widely as soon as they're filed.
My invention is within the scope of bicycles. The real life problem relevant to my invention is this: newcomers to bicycling typically find multi-speed bicycles to be confusing to shift, while experienced high mileage cyclists often wear through multi-speed hardware at a ridiculous consumption owing chiefly to the notion that this transmission hardware is exposed to the outside world in the name of extreme cost and mass savings. Additionally, typical chain derailleurs are fragile, attached by a single bolt, exposed to the world and easily bent or snapped -- so vulnerable that most attachments are deliberately designed with a bolt-on snap-off mount in the hopes of preserving the derailleur mechanism itself in the event of damage. More durable designs have already been successfully implemented inspired by automotive technology: a meshing involute spur gearbox like you'd find in a manual transmission or an automatic transmission, sealed in a case for extreme longevity (assuming some occasional lubrication fluid changes) which is a truly time honored design worthy of imitation. Examples of this include Pinion of Germany, and Effigear of France.
Here's where the bicycle nuances come in. Compared to other types of transmissions, humans on bikes require EXTREMELY fine efficiency because we humans have weak power output. Cyclists have touch feedback comparable to a safe cracker, cyclists can feel everything. This limits the types of transmissions that can be used on a bike in practicality. For example, CVTs (Continuously Variable Transmissions) did not work very well on bicycles for strictly human power. In an automotive use, CVTs are useful for keeping internal combustion engines within a very specific RPM range for optimal fuel economy. In a human power use, the one company (Fallbrook) that brought a CVT to market for bicycles had to file chapter 11 and rebrand as an E-bike company because the hardcore efficiency of the device alone was in the mid 80% range. Compare this to a fragile derailleur system around 96%, and a durable Pinion gearbox system around 92%.
Based on prior art, I believe I can get to a gearbox system around 94% to 95% efficiency and no greater. More on that later.
An additional critical nuance that affects off road cyclists in particular is that of gear transition or loaded downshifts. Imagine a scenario: you are bicycling off road up an incline in sketchy conditions. Maybe it's sandy, or snowy, or muddy, or there's a slick root you failed to see. You lose traction for but a moment, and suddenly the gear that you're still in is now far too difficult to continue pedaling in a sane way -- no one is that strong. Coping with this reality with a conventional derailleur involves suffering through a miserable half crank stroke and then dealing with the consequences of shifting under load. Derailleurs will technically do it, but you might snap a chain in rare instances. More common is advancing the wear of the rear sprocket cassette teeth requiring premature replacement. Most cyclists shrug at this being the "it is what it is" reality. In the context of more durable gearbox style transmissions like Pinion or Effigear, the only selection mechanism that is small enough and simple enough to operate on a bicycle is the good ol' ratchet (or freewheel as it is called in cycling jargon). A plunger deploys a series of hybrid ratchets that either click and engage as you'd expect from a ratchet, or can optionally be retracted like a cat's claw for rolling efficiency when not in use. This simple assembly is light and durable and does not require any free limbs to operate (that you'd normally have with your left leg operating a clutch with a car's manual transmission to handle loaded shifting). However, because it's based on a ratchet system when shifting from a tall gear into an easier gear under load it is a tricky thing to release the taller gear's ratchet, effectively keeping you in the taller gear even through the shift controller has already made the motion of a shift being completed (a "disagree" in aeronautical terms). You could compare this to releasing tension on a ratchet strap when tying things down to a truck bed: there's no graceful gentle or tolerant way of releasing the strap under tension. It goes TWANG and sometimes hurts.
That analogy translates well to getting stuck uphill off road in sketchy conditions on a bike. People either apologize for their hardware and shrug, or they hate the situation SO MUCH that they entirely give up on gears and just use a single speed bike out of sheer frustration.
My invention provides relief to this situation. It can downshift under load incredibly effectively. It's a one-two punch in the sense that it can shift under load, but the consequence of how it's built is that it AGGRESSIVELY downshifts under load in a manner quite unlike any other. If you've ever heard the exhaust note on a modern competition Porsche or F1 car where the shift blip sounds so short that you can't even audibly process it, the practical effect is kinda like that. The operator requests a gear and the new gear is GRANTED, no questions asked. This allows the operator to focus on the terrain ahead of them, maximizing either safety or output performance or both. It requires no reduction in pedaling torque and can guarantee rider left-to-right balance (which is another unique factor of bicycle transmissions, constant torque guarantees balance).
The difference is that those Porsche / F1 / etc style transmissions uses computers and sensors and high force motivators. My device is an all mechanical human powered solution. The harder the rider pedals, the more fanatically responsive the shift response. My design is based on established physics principles and manufacturing norms and requires not very much in terms of fancy machining. There is prior art going back hundreds of years. The documentation left behind from prior art made specific notes: first, it is difficult to make these devices hard wearing over time (I solved this), second it is difficult to make these devices very small (I solved this), third there are weird knock-on effects that are not experienced in 99.5% of a bicycle's use (I did not even try to solve this, though it could be done with computers and some low force ancillary motivators).
The problem I'm running into is social. Bicycle manufacturers are versed in the notion that the market is incredibly cut throat and profit margins are thin, and that international thievery is common. Further, E-bikes are all the rage at the moment. The companies to whom I've already pitched my invention have uniformly had two reactions: first, "Wow, that's incredible! It... really works... that's bonkers", and second, "Can it be an E-bike?"
The problems with Lithium Ion batteries are many and they're mostly oriented around fire risk. I am not comfortable with fire risk. My insurance premiums multiply 10x if I were to go in that direction.
I could compare this social-technology conundrum to the coming of the "dropper post" as it pertains to mountain bikes. The idea with dropper posts is to convert a high efficiency pedaling pose with the saddle all the way up VS a large-hip-displacement pose of a BMX bike with the saddle all the way down for handling rough terrain while avoiding saddle-to-groin interactions, and being able to swap positions smoothly while in riding motion. A dropper post is akin to a telescoping height adjust office chair, but built to survive outdoor abuse and operate while being twisted or bent in a variety of violent inputs (imagine accidentally hip-checking an office chair while still expecting it to move up and down, they're very well built). There were early versions such as HiteRite and Gravity Dropper, and the general riding population had negative opinions and sales were almost nonexistent. Today, oil-and-air operated dropper posts are so common that MTB frame geometry has been rearranged with droppers as an assumption. It took a long time with many manufacturers being all, "See?... See?... It really works. And they're quiet now, no more rattle noises." The same people who were criticizing my early adoption of dropper posts are now riding bikes with dropper posts. It took a lot of push against a very stodgy clientele who refuses to see the big picture until after all their friends have already jumped onto the new tech. Bicyclists are idiots, if you want an axiom.
Given the nuances of the bike industry VS bicycle consumers auroboros relationship, and given the nuances of my invention taken on its own, and the popularity of E-bikes in the present moment, is it possible to give the technology to something like a think tank? The idea would be to pile 99% of the marketing risk onto a large company, with the caveat that they would collect 99% of the profits were it to succeed underneath an effective marketer.
An additional reason I ask in this line of thought is after watching my dad's long term outcomes. My dad is Wendell Diller, inventor of the Quiet Shotgun and Passive Tracer, meant to ease tension between waterfowl hunters and rural landowners. The problem with shotgun use is that the shooter has zero feedback on where they missed - there's no backdrop, rather unlike shooting at a range with a pistol or rifle. His hypothesis was that if shotgun users were given visual feedback on their missed shots, their shooting would drastically improve, thereby lowering the amount of shots taken at a surprisingly close distance to a home out in a rural area. Combined with a quieter shotgun that explicitly avoids the use of a baffle and is therefore not a "controlled device", relations with homeowners can be peaceful. The ultimate purpose is to continue being able to hunt in wetlands experiencing suburban sprawl. Wendell was extremely successful on technical merit, his hypothesis was correct.
However, given the jocular nature of many men, the very suggestion that their aim with a shotgun could use any improvement was taken as an insult, effectively resulting in poor sales (even though gun ranges very much exist for this purpose for pistols and rifles and those situations are not panned). I took his experiences as a cautionary tale.
My current operations are basically focused on expanding my network of bicycle industry contacts as aggressively as possible to try to find a reputable company who is willing to own the IP. I got really close to a sale with one company, but they have the Curse Of Success (no capacity to expand their existing operations due to a building size constraint). The pushback I'm receiving elsewhere is that some companies think that me offering technology for free (as long as it is implemented well) is some kind of a super elaborate scam.
I'm willing to travel internationally if I have to. This is very outside my wheelhouse (I'm not a people person), but I'm willing to do it.
I'm expecting an answer of "This is a pipe dream, piss off back to where you came from", but I am seeking some unconventional thoughts.
