"/>


Kind of interesting sorry if the pic is too small just click on it I believe to make it bigger


Nick

i been sort of expecting this with the sany asian copys. but i like them
be nice see them produce the 3600 ton superlift in 1:50

.

---

Sent from my HTC M10 - Rooted , using S-OFF , Open Home 6 & Buuf icon packs
http://forum.xda-developers.com/ BUILD YOUR OWN PHONE

I'm sure it's not meaning the cranes look alike.

Probably components or sub assemblies were copied.

As is par for the course with China.

---

We rally round the family, with a pocket full of shells.....

I believe it has to do with the variable counterweight system Sany uses, which is said to infringe Manitowocs VPC patents. I guess it is about this Sany crane:

---

This is not just a case of the Chinese copying things, they hired the invetor (John Lanning) of the VPC right from Manitowoc. I had a chance to speak with him at Con-Expo, didnt exactly bring up the lawsuit issue as I didnt think it would be appropriate, but we talked about the design and attrubutes of the Sany crane and IMO are better than what he did with the MLC. For instance, it is a much simpler system as it uses hydraulic rams instead of toothed gear motors (Rack & Pinion) a split tray that piggybacks onto the base tray to create the Ultra-Lift that is easier maintained, however the one advantage (if it is an advantage) the MLC has over the SC8500 is that the VPC MAX can return to original CoG loacation of the VPC without MAX and the SC8500 cannot. Although, Mr. Lanning pointed out that when you have a VPC MAX configuration on the SC8500 (Ultra Lift), it didnt need to return to the center of the crane to be effective. It is this fact (buying/copying/stealing) intelectual property rights is what Manitowoc is fighting as they want to own the market with this technology. We all point at the Chinese for copying and producing cheap inferior products, but in this case if you want to compete in the Global market as Sany does, especially with cranes, you cannot just simply produce a "cheap knock off" and I dont think they did that here. If it is proven Sany used underhanded/unlawful tactics against Manitowoc, then I agree that Manitowoc has a case here. However, without people "changing a few things ever so slightly" here and there we would not have progress (or eveolution if you will) and advanced/improved designs. You would be quite surprised at how many similarities there are amongst "ALL" crane manufactures.

Wish I could have been there for that conversation!

I've read the Manitowoc patents, and they clearly have the rights to any moveable counterweight system that is powered by "an actuator". That would include a hydraulic ram.

Also, if I am not mistaken, the reason Manitowoc went with a gear-motor is because they learned on the 31000 that the constant micro-adjustments the computer is performing on the ram were causing susbtatial heat build-up issues in the hydraulics. A motor isn't susceptible to that, and, if you think about it, really isn't any more or less complicated. Both are very basic linear motion devices. You could do it either way....but my guess is that the motor/pinion system is also cheaper.

What we really need is for someone to figure out a passive load-moment dynamic counterweight system....i.e. one that worked with mechanical inputs from the boom/hoists/live mas and could move the counterweight with no powered actuators (like a balance scale). That's really the ultimate destination for this technology and Manitowoc's patent wouldn't touch it (they explicitly claim the use of an actuator in the counterweight motion).

But I agree with your last line.....crane technology is really stale. The machines all look the same, have roughly the same capacity, and are largely interchangeable. Sure, one is more fuel efficient than the other, one is a bit easier to put together than the other, one has a better warranty than the other...... But aside from this basic implementation of a moveable counterweight, has anyone REALLY done anything interesting with (lattice boom crawler) cranes since the 90's?

Other than the super-cranes of course!

---

The fundamental aim....is to do everything that is attempted in a first-class way."
-Pierre S. Dupont

I may be wrong, but didn't Sennebogen just introduce something like that with their EQ line?

If you look at the picture of the Terex LB/TC in the 1st post you can see that the base of the luffing boom is attached to a mechanisim that is directly related to the position of the CW and as it booms down, the CW changes position to compensate for CoG and improves capacity, stability and longer boom ranges.

CraneInovation:

I think the Versacrane, http://www.heavyequipmentforums.com/showthread.php?19275-Versa-9600-in-Dallas is a good starting point to what you are describing, although it does not have a dynamic CW system, you can see the potential, given the peramiters you spec'd out earlier.

There were several earlier pieces published in either "American Crane and Transport" or "Cranes Today." Likewise, there was an earlier suit Manitowoc vs. Lanning in which Manitowoc also prevailed. I reference these same publications as sources.

The substance of the actions were that Mr. Lanning was employed by Manitowoc as an engineer and in that role was the liaison between Manitowoc and its patent legal counsel. While employed by Manitowoc, Mr. Lanning was bound by employment agreements including non disclosure provisions as well as non-complete provisions after his employment. One of the pieces of intellectual property was the variable position counter weight. It was alleged that Mr. Lanning after being advised of what he was bound to by written agreement and acknowledging such at the time of his departure for Manitowoc entered the employment of Sany within 120 days of leaving and apparently recruited or attempted to recruit other Manitowoc engineering personnel.

The only items that I have not seen publicly disclosed is what damages if any were awarded Manitowoc in the earlier matter of Manitowoc vs. Lanning and if Sany under any agreements had indemnified Mr. Lanning regarding those damages, legal costs and possible lost benefits.

The final ruling in the matter referenced above should include the penalties or sanctions granted Manitowoc. My memory is that Manitowoc's request included precluding Sany's import or manufacture of machines utilizing the contested technology and the possible destruction of existing machines utilizing the technology.

Over the years several manufacturers have used patents to protect their intellectual property. The Manitowoc ringer is one and that is why American developed the Guy attachment and the Sky horse trailing counterweight for use until the patent ran out and the Ring Horse was introduced. Likewise there were some battles between tower attachments and outrigger designs between P&H and Lorain. P&H ultimate discontinued their tower production and Lorain ceased using the angled and extending out rigger bean and reverted to an out and down design. Link Belt likewise for many years had the quick disconnect ring and house jacks for their larger truck cranes protected. High strength tubular boom was another item that for a period was patented (possibly American). There were also battles between Demag and Liebherr over luffing boom designs.