|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/20/2005
Posts: 336
Location: Alberta Canada
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/20/2007
Posts: 50
Location: Germany
|
This has nothing to do with the VPC-System or the copy of this made by SANY! It´s not similar or very similar =>:-< !!! Its an independent developed system from TEREX-Demag, based on the normal stinger/tray-system, which is used many years from the most of the crane manufacturer of the world!
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/20/2005
Posts: 336
Location: Alberta Canada
|
Hello,
If you are making reference to the MLC300 or the MCL650 and the SCC8500 (Chinese copy) you are positively correct.
However, if you look at the M31000 there is a resemblance, the operating principles are also similar but the CC3800 serves a completely different purpose as it don't look like it can move a fully loaded tray.
No need to get offended, its nice to see the industry progress it has been stale in that class for some time. The Sany version is innovative as well and seems funny to me that just as it looks the same, the principle is the same but because it has come from the copy cat capital of the world its offensive.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/9/2012
Posts: 246
Location: Portsmouth, NH
|
The VPC patent specifically talks about moving the counterweight in the process of making the lift. They also seem to really focus on trying to claim a "linear actuator device" and non-linear linkages as specific patent claims. I don't disagree per se....but moveable counterweights are nothing new and Manitowoc might not be able to hold the market monopoly against a determined legal opponent. While the VPC system hasn't been built by anyone until they did, the concept is hardly novel.
Sany shot themselves in the foot by bringing John Lanning on and adding a very obvious de-facto corporate espionage or violation of NDA aspect to their situation.
The fundamental aim....is to do everything that is attempted in a first-class way."
-Pierre S. Dupont
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/20/2005
Posts: 336
Location: Alberta Canada
|
Hello CraneInnovation,
I agree that the extension or retraction of a cwt to gain capacity is nothing new as my father operated small Grove and Link Belt truck mounted hydraulic cranes that employed that very concept back in the late 70's and early 80's, that's as far back as I can go, limited by age. What I am trying to say here is two things and yes you have expanded on the latter (copyright infringement) One being that as soon as the Chinese bring out something that remotely resembles a highly regarded competitors product it is chastised profusely here on the forum as a copy. In this case here, IMO it resembles a M31000 VPC in appearance and somewhat in principle while it does not claim to be able to move the ballast tray with the load, it certainly has the potential. Two that crane manufacturers are listening to us crane rental companies regarding simpler more cost effective methods of employing cranes as we struggle to remain competitive in this business. With the need for assist cranes to assemble and erect our larger crawler cranes which was my point about being innovative in the sense that manufacturers are doing something about that.
Hope this clarifies what I meant by being innovative in the world of cranes.
Kind regards,
Craneman
|
|
|
Guest |
