RE: [Paddlewise] Nadgee, Max, Boat Copying

Peter Treby [mailto:ptreby_at_ozemail.com.au] wrote:
 
>>>>>>>>If you ask what is a copy for the purpose of granting legal rights
to the
designer of the original, then the copy needs to be a close one, even an
identical shape. If you ask "What is a copy?" such that the new boat will
offend the designer of the original, but not grant legal rights, a much
looser resemblance may give rise to irresolvable opposite opinions, as it
has done here.<<<<<<<<<

What if just the front half is identical? What if just the top was
identical? How about three quarters or only one eighth identical and taken
directly off another kayak?


>>>>>>>>>>I trust
what Dave tells me about his design process, and accept it. He is a paddling
friend and honest. But I'm not carrying a brief for him in any way, he
didn't pick this issue, and as you know Matt, I did not acquaint him with
this
discussion until recently. In the end, if you think the Nadgee is a ripoff,
it is between you and Dave, not my problem. I know a little more now
about the creation of the Nadgee, and what further I have found out just
confirms my point of view, but I decline to be the post box. If you want to
get the detail of events which occurred some time ago, go direct and sort it
out. You've been in touch with him in the past.<<<<<<<<

Why don't you answer the simple questions I put to you in my last long post?
They were: Did he start with the Max lines? Did he pay for them if he did?

>>>>>>>>>>>You've been
reminded of it by an Australian competitor of Dave's, and you knew at the
time the visiting paddler turned up in Seattle and test paddled your
boats.<<<<<<<<<<

If the visiting paddler told me I don't recall it now (or even upon first
seeing the Nadgee on the beach at the symposium and hearing it was from
Australia). If I was told it definitely didn't register as something very
important at the time. Of course, there is a lot of difference in somebody
making themselves a copy for their own use and somebody selling that copy
and potentially competing with the originator. The later (had I known) would
certainly garnered my attention.

>>>>>(Matt:) "I'm talking about the hull of this kayak. How the deck has
been changed or
the cockpit sizes differs etc. etc. is just so much obfuscation of the real
issue."
(Peter:) Your real issue.
I don't agree that two boats with the same hulls cannot be different boats
if they differ in other respects, the more so if those other differences are
major, and are innovative themselves. Some of these features have an
important effect on performance and handling.<<<<<<

So it appears you are saying here that the hull of the Nadgee is
substantially the same as the Max. How did that come to be? You say you were
told the story by the builder but for some reason you seem very reluctant to
share that story with Paddlewise or myself.


>>>>>>>>>I own a Nadgee, I know what the keel looks like. It differs from
the picture of the XL hull<<<<<<<<

The light and shadows in that picture may mislead the eye some about the
blending. The blending radius is smaller in our kayaks. Had Sea Kayaker's
section lines showed the keel better I suspect the Nadgee would be even
closer in this respect than it is.

>>>>>>>>>There are instances of flop moulding in
Australia. The copies that I can think of are not as good as the originals.
Word gets around, and paddlers prefer the better originals.<<<<<<<

The reasons for this is likely because someone who cuts corners and starts
with an existing kayak doesn't usually have the same understanding of hull
function the original designer has. Probably because one of the earlier
corners they cut was with their education.


>>>>>>>I have always wondered about the central cords on the front decks of
Mariners,
and whether they are as good as perimeter decklines. OK, I know you offer
any arrangement a buyer wants, but the arrangement depicted in your boat
drawings is the central running line. Decklines are often useful to rotate
the boat on its long axis against the capsizing efforts of the swimmer
scrambling aboard, so lines at the edge are good.<<<<<<<<<<

I've rescued a lot of paddlers and between the cockpit rim and the rear deck
lines I've never had a problem holding the boats during rescue. I did
recently hear from someone who told me that boat over boat rescues were
easier with perimeter lines at the bow (to rotate the kayak with to dump the
water). We don't recommend boat over boat (dump out) rescues (they are very
difficult with a heavy gear load and potentially hard on the kayaks as well)
but we will add bow perimeter lines there if someone wants them.

>>>>>I have used a foot pump in the two boats I have owned and never had
cramp
problems. If this is a problem, an electric pump, well maintained is an
alternative. I do think a hands-free pump is a better solution to boat
flooding than any other. In fact, one hesitation about experimenting with a
sea sock, is that fitting a hands-free pump inside a sea-sock does not seem
to be easily accomplished.
Anyone ever done that? If it can't be done well, that's a negative. Without
a hands-free pump, the boat needs to be able to be paddled while flooded to
somewhere you can empty it by a hand pump. You can't paddle and operate a
hand pump effectively at the same time.<<<<<<<

So far the electric pumps have been a hard sell in the Seattle market. Years
ago I had a couple in the store. They took a long time to sell and they both
failed and came back and ended up back to the manufacturer. I personally
think they have a lot of potential. If someone can bring one to market that
is inexpensive and trouble free they might have a hit and will need to worry
about the copy-cats. The foot pumps I've seen only have a small fraction of
the output of a good hand pump. 

>>>>>>>>>Just to say this again, I accept Dave at his word, he never
intended to copy
a Mariner and come up with a ripoff, and he hasn't.<<<<<<<<

What DID he actually say? Did he start with the Max's lines or not? You keep
avoiding this question.


>>>>>>>>>I agree day hatches are not a perfect solution to the problem of
getting at
gear while on the water, but they are a workable solution. And as you
mentioned a while ago, a fix to one problem may create others. I'm sure
you'll tell if I'm wrong, but Mariners don't appear to provide access to
gear
while on the water. Things are best kept simple, and it is best not to need
too much gear. But there is the chart, camera, snack food, and drink. And if
night comes on, a torch. And a kite... the list can build.<<<<<<<<<

My water, lunch, rescue float and a warmer jacket fit behind my seat (and in
the sliding seat version are held to the seat by shock cords on the back of
the seat). I can access them through the top of my sprayskirt if need be but
if it is not very rough I just open one corner of the back of my sprayskirt
(and the sea sock if I'm using one)for a few seconds to get at them. That's
where I kept my kite too but I've not had much luck with kites and consider
them more of a frustrating toy rather than a functional sea kayaking item.
My cameras (that aren't waterproof) are in a spare inflatable rescue float
with a roll down closure (often between my legs or in front of my feet).
Lately, I also carry a small water resistant camera in a PFD pocket and as a
result I can now take pictures in pretty rough water. I've even gotten it
out and taken some pictures with it while surfing on the face of some small
breakers. My torch, small flares and smoke also go in a PFD pocket. My hand
pump is up under the deck in front of me, as are the charts that I don't
presently have visible on the top of the deck. 

>>>>>>>I have recessed deck line fittings, with 6 mm cord as the
decklines. They are easy to grab. I have assisted quite a few paddlers back
into their boats, and never had trouble getting hold of the decklines, which
on most boats around here run through recessed fittings. I would rather not
bark my knuckles on a hard plastic raised fitting.
The raised fittings can be catching points when crawling over boats in
rescues.<<<<<<<

I don't wear gloves either, but I have heard many complain of not being able
to easily grab the grablines on recessed fitted boats. I suggest they loosen
the lines some but nylon lines have a way of shrinking back tighter again if
not maintained. The middle line on the bow of our most common deck rig is
loose enough (or it stands off the deck a bit if tight) that it is easy to
grab in a hurry, such as before the boat gets away in the wind. One benefit
of nylon eyelet fittings is other deck lines you may want can be easily
added and still not look like an afterthought.
Which particular raised fittings do you think you would bark your knuckles
on? I never do and we purposefully keep them away from areas where one might
find them in the way. These eyelets are very rounded on top and protrude
about 1/2 inch above deck. About twice as much as the deck lines themselves.
There are no corners to get anything caught on. This is a red herring I hear
often though coming from the promoters of kayaks sporting big interior
bumps.

>>>>>>>>What fool? You and many others are producing boats and are out in
the marketplace, aren't you?
The notion that a boat designer will hesitate to enter the market and
produce boats does not seem to be supported by the great number of kayak
manufacturers making boats at present.
If the originator does proceed, and someone takes that idea and improves
upon it, boat buyers win. I agree there is a tension between the need
to give protection to originality, and freedom to imitate and improve. The
situation described by a post about the Netherlands seems to be just what
you are talking about here, so maybe some people are put off producing
their ideas because a rapacious market will share their idea and profits.
If so, those people are perhaps a small minority, and plenty of kayak makers
are in the business. Do you know of instances where people have been
deterred
from producing boats by the prospect of being ripped off?

I don't personally know of any, but since I know a lot of boat makers and
not those who thought about designing kayaks but didn't (because of the
circles I hang out in) it doesn't mean that the Leonardo da Vinci of Kayak
design didn't drop the whole idea as unprofitable. Blatant rip-offs are
mainly done by small time operators (a few of which have become large). If
this was to become a well respected practice, as you seem to be proposing it
should be, the risk of being ripped-off would be far greater to potential
designers.

>>>>>>>>>>Yes, there is a difference between what is desirable to protect
legally, and
what people may feel is legitimate morally. I do know this, but I don't find
the Nadgee raises my indignation because I am aware of the lengthy trial and
error process that went into it, Dave's intentions, as far as I know the
different hull shape, and being a markedly different boat in other respects,
so I think of it as a boat in the same family of kayak hulls as yours, but
developed into something new and different.<<<<<<<<<<

I'd say you then may be suffering a little cognitive dissonance. If you let
yourself admit it was a rip-off you would have to give up a kayak you love.
Better to keep on the blinders and paddle the boat you love in good
conscience. I'll ask you again. Did he start with the Max hull lines or not?


>>>>>>In favour of copying and imitation, just have a look around at the sea
kayaks around now, and consider how those
designs evolved. Copying earlier designs and building is the way a lot of
kayaks have come to be what they are now. The Nordkapp was modelled on a
Greenland boat in a museum. Frank Goodman makes the Nordkapp in the UK,
around 1977. The design is made under royalty in New Zealand by Sisson
kayaks. Noel Sisson designs the Arctic Raider, described as larger and
faster, but unmistakably derived from the Nordkapp. The AR arrives in
Australia, and Canoe Sports makes an Arctic Raider, which influences further
boats based on the same general hull shape, Southern Raider, Ocean Raider,
and Raider-X, this last being a longer boat, and is currently fairly
popular: one was used in the first non-stop crossing of Bass Strait by
Andrew Macauley. Do you think the Raider X is a copy of the original museum
boat which inspired the Nordkapp? Are royalties due to the Greenlander who
made the museum boat? Is this a chain based on a ripoff, with more along the
way? There are many lines of boat development: another one leads from the
Icefloe
to the Pittarak in Australia. See the story on
http://www.pittarak.com.au/news.html and go to "Pittarak, the Story". In
fact, would kayaks designed by engineers and naval architects be in a small
minority?
The more I think about the issues raised in this hull copying business, the
wider it gets.<<<<<<<<<<

Copying seems to be rampant down under. So common maybe its just considered
the way things are done. The Nadgee builder may have not thought twice he
was doing anything wrong. "It's okay mom, all the kids are doing it". One
designer told me (describing the differences between a plastic boat made in
NZ and his design) "It^Rs a lot like the (his boat that the builder had been
building) but without the royalties." I suspect that may have had a lot to
do with the Artic Raider's inception.

Others have straightened you out about the origins of the Nordkapp. BTW it
was 1975 in my records not 1977. Alan Byde (who had a beef with Frank
Goodman) once told me that there was an Anas Acuta inside the Nordkapp plug.
His he said that the original Nordkapp had the bow several inches out of
line just like the Anas did (back in 1982 when I first saw it) but that it
was soon straightened out. Unaware of this conflict until later, I once
accidentally implied that the Nordkapp was a modification of the Anas in a
long rambling personal correspondence (to a now Paddlewiser) which later got
published in a newsletter (with my "groggy having just been awakened by the
phone call" permission. My information came from the expedition report of
that first expedition to the "Nordkapp" where one of the members was
describing the differences from the Anas of their new kayak made especially
for the trip. Frank got very mad at me about that. I didn't realize at the
time that there were accusations being made in England about copying and
Frank seemed to think I was saying it was a copy. Thinking back the
controversy in England may have been Mr. Byde's doing. I don't know if it
was or wasn't true. If Frank owned all the rights to the Anas it would be
immaterial anyhow. 
Back in 1982 at the first Sea Kayaking Symposium in Maine I was astonished
that a well respected kayak from England (Anas) would have the bow warped
about 2 or 3 inches out of line with the rest of the hull. I asked Frank
about it and he said that's the way the plywood plug he had been given to
use was. By 1984 when I saw it again the Anas Acuta's bow had been
straightened. My understanding is that the Anas plug was Geoff Blackford's
ply kayak, built in 1969, which was a raised deck version of the
"Igdlorssuit" that Ken brought back from Greenland in 1959.

Chuck Holst wrote:
>>>>>>>One of the fascinating things about Cooke's lecture is that he
illustrated it with slides of the group's experiments with different
hatches, which undercuts Derek Hutchinson's claim in the 20th anniversary
edition of Sea Kayaker to be the sole inventor of compartmented kayaks. 

I once made a comment to Goodman about the Valley kayaks being based on 
Greenland models, and he denied it, saying that his kayaks were designed 
according to the principles of good marine architecture, or words to that 
effect. In fact, though the Anas Acuta was being built by Valley Canoe 
Prooducts at the time of the Nordkapp expedition, I believe the design was
by Howard Jeffs.<<<<<<<<<<

Here is part of a letter I wrote Sea Kayaker (and it might make it in the
next issue):
In the article "Five Things That Changed Sea Kayaking", Derek Hutchinson
seems to be claiming he was the first to put bulkheads into kayaks in 1974
(and that it was also an industry changing event). 
Several years ago I recall, there was a lot of claims and counter claims and
heated debate in a British canoeing publication being made as to who was
actually the first to make kayaks with bulkheads and hatches. Nobody in that
debate apparently stopped to think that it may have happened somewhere else
besides Britain and much earlier at that. Fiberglass kayaks with a stern
hatch and bulkhead were being built in the Seattle, WA area by Linc Hales,
for one, in the early 1960's. However, the first kayak with a stern bulkhead
came much earlier than that. Some early examples of kayaks with rear hatches
and bulkheads were in drawings dated 1924 found in Arthur Tiller4s book
"Handbuch des Wassersports" (Handbook of Watersports) first published in
1926.

Frank Goodman was the first kayak designer I met who had a good grasp of
Naval Architecture. I haven't met very many others since, Paddlewise's John
Winter's and Nick Schade being two of the others. I'd love to have every
kayak designer hooked up to a (perfect) lie detector and ask them just how
their designs came about. There may actually be surprisingly few real kayak
designers out there. But, then how hard can it be? Long, narrow, and pointed
at both ends, what else do you need to know? Certainly not Naval
Architecture.

Doug, why don't you use Robert Livingston's "Bearboat" program to design
your own wood-strip kayak? That way if it is successful you can sell the
design to be built in glass. One commercial builder (and Paddlewise member)
has already designed a successful kayak using Robert's program. Robert's
program is free and can be downloaded from the "Downloads" page on our
website. It is a very sophisticated program and I found it quite easy to
learn to use.


Matt Broze
http://www.marinerkayaks.com
***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************