[Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
Abbott's been selling their kit for too long without seeking protection for anyone to have to worry about patent infringement. They've also done nothing to make the design proprietary: Its well known that stiffening the steering mechanisms leads to more positive feel, and that this stiffening can be achieved with a brace. The kit obviously applies this well known phenomenon to the Saab 9-3/ng900 steering rack.
The abbott kit, like most successful aftermarket innovations, is more a triumph of good workmanship than of creative engineering. There's really nothing illegal, or for that matter, unethical about trying to match or exceed the workmanship or price point for an unprotectible new article. This is economic competition.
Like most Saab fans and fans of other low volume cars, we've all read about this blah-blah back in college, but may not thought that the crass economics upon which mass market makers base their designs has anything to do with our beloved marque. It happens in the Saab aftermarket. Its just not as off-putting as in the world of Oldsmobuick sales.
Anyway, broadly speaking, reverse engineering is perfectly legit where the original manufacturer takes no steps to protect rights in the new product. I agree with the sentiment that competition is good in these niche markets. Its not like a general marketplace where the threat of copycats would thwart any incentive to innovate. With respect to this off the shelf aftermarket, we are all probably more interested in the workmanship (touted as integrity) than in the conceptual innovation (dismissed as gimmickiness)of the solution.
If you really follow the board you'll notice evidence of a general rule; those are result oriented spend the wad to get the reassurance of having the prestige name parts put on my a pro; those that are process oriented will not want to spend us much and hence not be targeted as much for product, and hence will innovate with homebrewed solutions. Market leaders flock to the former group, but leave a definite market gap for others to seduce the less desirable second group. (Note tidy cyclical nature of phenomenon; a motivated someone probably once recieved an 'A' for spouting drivel just like this)
Put differently, wouldn't you guess that Abbott, Hirsch and Nordic (the priciest) are more economically successful than the bang for the buck leaders such as BSR, Speedparts and Maptun, despite the presumably greater overall expenses of the former group?
The reason is simple; the pricey companies offer more consumer reassurance for the workmanship and provenness of their new products; namely, show cars and racers; (the not irrational "it must work well, as they've tested and proven in on their show/race car" phenomenon). With this, the pricey co.s can recoup from the public by offering more global solutions, by charging more and providing more quality assurance, without having to pay IP lawyers. The innovation angle is merely the, er, polish on the chrome.
None of this to say that I or anyone else has any reason to question to quality of the less expensive brands. However, I have assurances about some of the less expensive brands because of not-readily-apparent factoids I've picked up by spending a lot of time reading user comments and the like. On the other hand, I've not really bought much, and am engaged in a 'bit by bit' project. I'll admit I enjoy the process and am less fixed on the end result than some.
Those who do more of the "all at once" mod probably went with the instant reassurance of the prototype/show car/ race car, unless they were extremely knowledgable and experienced to start with. Buying from one of the expensive brands would be a smart move for the result oriented.
In short, its all good.
Also, I'm leaning toward Abbott if I decide to buy a suspension solution, because A) i have reassurance of the sort described above of the interopability of parts should I decide to further upgrade, and B) I haven't yet thought of a good alternative homebrew method.
This is evidence of yet another general rule: the result oriented tend to be lacking one or more of the necessary qualifications of the process oriented. Results oriented folks will tell you they lack time or capacity for risk. Process oriented folks will tell you the lacking elements is common sense, technical knowledge, or balls.
posted by 66.139.22...
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
