Ken Rasmussen kayakfit_at_fidalgo.net www.kayakfit.com Regarding: Nadgee, Max, Boat Copying I regret that I haven't seen the entire thread or the Nadgee kayak, but I disagree with the previous posting by Peter Treby. Regardless of the legality of copying a hull shape, it is immoral to copy a hull shape without the permission of the designer. I have a kayak that I have modified the hull on so it acts different than it originally did. I could take a mold from that hull and reproduce it, but I'd still be ripping off the original designer. It is a very easy thing to take an existing kayak, criticize it, and improve it. It is a great deal harder to create something new from one's own imagination. The law is just a clumsy attempt to create a workable society. It often has similarity to what we think of as morality, but it is not morality. Most of us would feel guilty if we used someone's design without permission, and that is as it should be. *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Peter asked: <Snip>>>>>>I have wondered, when looking at the lines shown in Sea Kayaker reviews, whether the line drawings are deliberately fudged to make it harder to copy the designs reviewed.<<<<<<Snip> No, but before this happened I did tell Chris at Sea Kayaker that the line drawings they publish could be used that way. The reason the hard chines didn't show up as hard as they actually were was that they would require a lot more measuring points when they map the boats surface near the chines to get the chines to show up as real hard edged. They already have several extra near places where there are rapid changes in shape. >>>>>>>No doubt you get peeved at imitators who trade on your efforts. On the other hand, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Why keep good ideas under wraps?<<<<<<<< Because one person does the work and the copy-cat takes that work and enriches himself at the original designers expense. Had this happened in the same market as I'm selling kayaks in I'd be a lot more upset because then I'd be having to compete with my own hull design against the crook who took all the short-cuts at my expense rather than his. >>>>>>There is a question of degree. If someone looks at a Mariner, thinks the general scheme is good, then designs another swede form boat with a bloated V-bow and hard chines and a keel line at the stern, at what point is it an unacceptable rip-off?<<<<<<< I have no problem whatsoever with anyone who wants to try to make a kayak much like one we have designed. In fact, this has happened several times that I know of and many more that I suspect. Looking at them I'd guess that the Tempests may have been influenced in several ways by our preexisting designs, but I have absolutely no problem with that (if it was the case) as long as the designer didn't take our very design (or a boat) as the basis to start making the modifications from. Splashing a hull (taking a mold off someone else's boat) without permission is the worst rip-off as it is the easiest to do. Splashing a hull that has been modified in easy ways before making a mold from it is as bad and possibly even more devious if the changes are cosmetic and designed to hide the fact it is a rip-off. Mapping the shape and making an identical shape from scratch takes more work but is still a rip-off of the original designer because it produces a nearly identical shape and avoids a major part of the design work that would have been required starting from scratch. Taking someone else's plans (or the cross sections from a publication such as Sea Kayaker) and building and selling a kayak from those plans without the designer's permission is also a rip-off even if some modifications to those plans are made. Liking someone's design and using some of the features of that design in a new design that was created from scratch is flattery. I have no problem with the later especially if the designer admits what influenced them. What makes it a rip-off is when the design and building process is short-cutted by using someone else's hard work and education and then acting as if it is one's own design (including selling it) because one made a few changes to the original. The distribution of volume in a kayak is one of the major determiners of its performance (and I mean performance in the overall handling sense, John--not just the hull drag sense you have interpreted this to mean in the past). Changing the deck or making changes to the bow and stern may disguise the rip-off from the casual observer but if the hull remains identical the handling has been ripped off from the original. The handling can be easily tweaked by adding or taking away a little from the keel but the distribution of volume is the work of the original designer and has still been ripped-off. Most builder's don't know much about design so they buy someone else's design in the form of plans or a kit to build. The designer gets compensated for their efforts that way. Unfortunately, that same lack of ability is also the case for many who seek to be kayak builders in the market place. Sure they could hire a designer or pay them royalties for their designs but why bother when all you have to do is splash a well respected design and then make a few cosmetic changes and call yourself the designer (and keep the royalties). Those who do this are not hull designers they are crooks. >>>>>>I'm not uncomfortable with the Nadgee being developed from lines published in Sea Kayaker, if that is what happened. Was any legal protection of the shape claimed when published in the magazine? There is no mention of such claims in any SK boat reviews I have seen. On the face of it, the shape is out there available to copy.<<<<< The magazine was copyrighted so taking the drawing and blowing it up to full size was a direct violation of the copyright law. The goal of the Nadgee builder was to have the hull be as close as possible to the Max (which had a spectacular review in Sea Kayaker and also by a friend of the builder who had paddled it). When the friend saw the prototype of the Nadgee made from the Sea Kayaker "plans" he told the builder that the Max had considerably harder chines. The chines were then modified to make them like the Max's. The Max shape was taken as closely as possible and them modified to make it even closer to the original. But even if the shape had been taken and then modified to be different than the original in several ways it would still have been a rip-off. >>>>There was a boat reviewed in Sea Kayaker which bore some resemblances to Mariner boats, the "Synergy" by Northwest Kayaks, (April 2001 SK.) What do you think of that boat?<<< In the 15 minutes or so that I have paddled it on flat water I can say I like several things about it. It was very responsive to a leaned turn. It is interesting that you should notice the resemblance. The "designer" was also the owner of the company that we contracted with for many years (to use our molds to build the main hull and deck parts of our kayaks). Once during a local safety symposium in the 1980's there was a "designer's forum" where the audience asked questions of the half dozen or so kayak designers in attendance. To one question asked of all the designers: "How do you determine what to do to make your sea kayak designs" this person answered "Matt and Cam (Mariner Kayaks) are the best kayak designers in the industry. I look at what they do and then I do like that." If that isn't an exact quote it is damn close. He also knew which kayaks were our best sellers so he knew which ones to imitate first. For his first sea kayak design he took the mold of a kayak we had designed for him (for royalties) and filled it with foam making the basis for a new plug. We could tell it was taken from one of two of our designs but he had made some major changes to it with a chain saw (v-keel) and reshaped the bow. I didn't figure out how he did it until years later he asked to use one of our molds to fill with foam to make easily modified shape for a "new" design. I asked if that was what had caused some damage to the Escape mold years before. He assured me that hadn't been the cause of the damage. We turned down his request. Most of his other design's tried to imitate our designs as well, but, as far as I know, they were started from scratch by building his own plug. Some were better imitations than others. Actually, while we weren't thrilled about this form of flattery (by a competitor) we were less disturbed when he did a pretty good job with the imitations than when he totally blew it. One kayak looked so much like one of ours that most people couldn't tell the difference when they looked at it. Since it paddled so poorly it ended up costing both us and, by extension, our builder many sales of our Coaster design (which at the time was our best seller) because people were told that it was "just like a Coaster" and at first believed it (since it looked just like it too). That is what the retailer who demanded it from the builder wanted it to be "just like a Coaster" (when he could no longer retail the Coaster). Unfortun ately, the Sportee wasn't "just like a Coaster" but it took several years for it to sink into oblivion. In the mean time many who tried the Sportee wouldn't later try a Coaster because they thought it was the same (if they weren't told that they could see by looking at it that it looked almost identical). One potential customer, who from his description of what he was looking for, I figured needed a Coaster, had just tried a Sportee out next door and told me he liked it the least of the six kayaks he had just tried. As a result he was not interested in the Coaster I had suggested he consider at all and wasn't even going to bother trying it. I finally asked him if he would try it for me "just to see if he could feel any differences at all between them". An hour later the guy bought a Coaster. I suspect in the long run the Sportee cost the builder more money than he made from it because as a result he didn't build as many Coasters for us as he would have had he not tried to make a look alike. As much as it looked like a Coaster and had basically the same major dimensions it was a kayak that was built from scratch from a design made from plugging the Coaster's main dimensions into a computer program. I didn't like what happened but it wasn't a rip-off by my definition. However, we can do without that kind of flattery. The "just like a Coaster" was certainly false advertising (if maybe based on false hope) by the retailer and in the end as word got out about the boat he had probably burned his reputation some because of it. I wrote: "I got a chance to paddle the (privately owned) Nadgee that I first saw the year before. I was surprised at how much difference there actually was in the handling (relative to what I had expected, because they look so similar). The Nadgee is much stiffer tracking than the Max when level (31sec. 180 turn vs. 21 sec.) and somewhat slower turning when leaned up enough so water is not quite yet on the spraydeck (12 sec. 180 turn vs. 9 sec.). There just wasn't the same sportiness and this would likely also make the Nadgee harder to turn up into a high wind than the Max, especially for a less skilled paddler who is unwilling to lean it much while turning." Peter wrote: >>>>>>>Sportiness = ease of turning?<<<<< No, responsiveness to the paddle and edging would be more how I'd define that. >>>>>>This whets my appetite to paddle a Max and compare it with the Nadgee. Could you send a demo boat over asap, not the sliding seat version? ;-). First guess as to the reason for the difference is less rocker than the Max. I haven't had any unacceptable problem turning into wind, so far. This afternoon I tested turning the Nadgee by turning it as hard as possible, giving it everything to get around. On flat water it goes around with one extended paddle reverse sweep turn, edged and leaned, around to about 120 -130 degrees with one stroke, needing a further sweep to get it the whole 180 degrees. That turn takes under 12 - 13 seconds mostly, but 9 seconds at best. The method of timing is something I had to run a few times to get consistency. The time depends on when you count the turn as starting. If you count from deciding to initiate the turn, the time is 1 - 2 seconds slower than if the turn is counted as starting when the paddle hits the water and starts to turn the boat. Because of these subjective differences, the timing comparisons for a particular paddler may be meaningful, but comparisons between different paddlers trialling boats would be less useful. I found it hard to turn without leaning and edging, so I couldn't really get the flat turn time.<<<<<<<< Because different paddlers use different techniques, and also differ in weight and strength, what I get and someone else gets for the same kayak are also going to differ. I'm using a 180 degree turn at speed starting just a split second before planting the paddle for the first stroke of the sweep. A distant object (or the sun and my head's shadow) are my guides to doing a 180. All strokes are on the same side (and forward strokes) and I start from a cruising speed. In one test I keep the kayak on an even keel the whole time I'm turning it . In the other I'm leaning it as far as I dare without water pouring into the cockpit (if I didn't have on a spraydeck on). The kayak is kept at this lean throughout the turn. I also spin the kayaks in place through 360 degrees, both leaned and level. The leaned turn and spin are also done with the rudder or skeg in the full down position if the kayak has one. I've done this for over 750 different kayak hulls so far (and have all the results on four spreadsheets--North American, foreign, wood, and skin boats) so I have a lot of practice at it and have often retested the same hull to see if I am consistent. If I think their was any glitch in my technique during a test I try it again to see if the results differ. The leaned 180 turns tell me the most about how quickly a kayak can turn. The ratio of that number with the level turn time tells me the most about how well a kayak tracks. The raw time for a level turn mostly tells me how hard the kayak is to turn if the paddler won't lean it (as many less skilled paddlers won't when the wind is high). Some long kayaks can be hard to turn and also track poorly. Some short kayaks can turn easily and still be very good trackers as well. Responsiveness (as I define it) is a factor in how easy it is to get the kayak back on course if something has diverted you somewhat from that course. When I'm at my shop on Lake Union I also run a sprint test down a fixed course. I record the month and year of the test so I can make water temperature corrections. BTW, my 360 degree spin in place times (alternating one sweep forward with one back sweep) were 19 sec. leaned and 25 sec. level for the Max. For the Nadgee they were 36 sec. and 38 sec. I'd say the difference is partly because some keel was probably added to the Max design ripped off of the Sea Kayaker review and because the Max templates were stretched a bit further apart and narrowed (not blown up quite as big) a bit. That made a longer kayak that sank the keel deeper in the water with the same weight added. After I retire, and that could be pretty soon, I might publish the data from all these tests (and data on the over 3000 kayaks I have dimensions and company information for) on the web in some form. >>>>>>Did you like the colour scheme of Drew's boat? Copied from another boat!<<<<< Who is Drew? If anyone would like to see a picture of the Nadgee hull to compare it with the vertical XL hull (pictured in the XL page in the "Kayaks" pickbox on our website) please e-mail me back channel and I'll attach one to the return. Matt Broze 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/ ***************************************************************************
Peter asked: >No doubt you get peeved at imitators who trade on your efforts. On >the other hand, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Why >keep good ideas under wraps? Because it can hamper progress as well? >From the stories that I have heard here in the Netherlands about the vigorous copying amongst kayak manufacturers here in the past (before Polyethylene was commonly used for touring kayaks), I understand that the result is, that no one now dares to invest in a new kayak model, even when there seems to be a possible market for it -- at least one popular (fast) touring design here that I know of, just begs for a much better version (according to the all the complaints about certain unwanted characteristics that I repeatedly hear from the owners) but it just isn't going to happen. Sad. Dirk Barends *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Matt, Paddlewise This thread is running several issues, the three I want to pick up being: 1. The general protection of sea kayak designs, or lack of it, 2. The specific instance of the Nadgee vs. Mariner 3. The side issue of lawyer bashing. Commentary on this one is leading away from sea kayaking issues, so I won't fuel the fire, but I do get annoyed at idle snipes at lawyers. As Gordin pointed out, people are prone to casually slag off at lawyers in general, then rush to their own lawyer when trouble strikes. Nadgee vs. Mariner, and general boat design protection: We have reached a divide in values here, which won 't resolve by an agreement between you and I. I don't find any problem with boat shapes being copied and developed further, unless there is some high level legal protection breached, like a patent. You might pour scorn on your imitators, but you can't stop them, and the only way to crush them is to out compete them. I find it interesting that bold advocates of rugged individualism and free enterprise are also those who have no hesitation is seeking legal and governmental protection in the form of trade barriers and stop suits etc. (Before you hit the roof and reply to this, I am not automatically assuming you fall into the category of state protected free marketeers.) Here is an example of the way things can work. In the late 1960's, Roland Pauligk was a very talented local rockclimber. There were no protection devices suitable for very small rock crevices. Roland methodically developed and manufactured "RPs", a very finely made set of brass nuts. (There's some easy fodder for the Paddlewise court jesters!). They were immediately successful, and for a while, unique. Larger competitors, like Black Diamond, Wild Country, copied the idea, some claiming they made better micro nuts. But somehow, they didn't, and Roland maintains a viable business by being the best. Message: don't bitch about your imitators, outdo them. (Want to see these: http://www.mtntools.com/cat/rclimb/nuts/pc_rps.htm) Although the best way to compare would be placing a Nadgee beside the closest Mariner design and measuring, I have no doubt in my mind that the Nadgee is so different as to be a different boat, and not so close to any Mariner as to be a thoughtless ripoff. The hull shape performs differently, according to Matt's own testing. The rest of the boat is very different. It has three bulkheads, VCP hatches, a day hatch, a fitted foot pump, perimeter decklines on the foredeck, an offset rear oval hatch to allow the spare paddle to be fitted and left in place, a much smaller cockpit opening, recessed deck fittings. The hull does not have a distinctive ridge or runner like stern keel, rather it is faired into the hull shape. Whatever variations the custom-built Nadgees have, including rudders on many, custom fitted bulkheads and variations, they fit Australian seaworthiness standards, and are designed to do this. No Mariner boat fits these standards, the conspicuous problems being lack of a hands-free pump, and no decklines around the foredeck. I expect Matt to say these are mainly fit-out differences, but when they are all built in, they add up to making a different boat. A boat is not just a hull shape, and in any event, the Nadgee hull shape diverges from Mariner boats. It was never intended by its designer to be a copy of any Mariner boat. His design process was paper and pencil, build a test boat, modify it, refine it, and after lengthy testing, arrive at the Nadgee. He has lately stated that he has never seen a Max in the flesh, and only seen two pictures of the Mariner Max in Sea Kayaker, and one of its hull on the Mariner website, only after finishing the Nadgee. I wonder if your attitude hasn't changed since you passed on the message to "wish him luck" (circa 1995)? I am surprised to hear you (Matt) claiming that you would be upset at a Nadgee created in your market, when you have apparently done little about NW Kayaks, a couple of suburbs away from you. NW Kayaks hull design method, filling your mould with foam, hacking into the foam, then creating a boat, is closer to a flop mould ripoff than a designer in Australia using a SeaKayaker review along the way to creating a his boat. The Nadgee's designer is no crook in this or any other respect. He is a hard working craftsman who makes high quality boats, and who has developed a number of very practical new features on his boats, not seen on yours, and which, if both boats were available in the same market, would make me lean towards the Nadgee. Why don't you adopt these features for your boats? I would be surprised if Mariners fitted with bulkheads, day hatches, thick perimeter decklines, and a good foot pump, did not sell, and maybe very well. Look at how many sea kayaks with the three hatch arrangement are selling. It is a good, practical arrangement. The addition of these features to the type of hull you have developed, a rudderless hull that works, creates a new and better boat. You say you have no problem with someone making a kayak like the ones you have designed. So your objection is really that they shouldn't do this by the easiest method, say by flop moulding (= splashing a hull). Like whether a boat is a copy or is sufficiently different to be regarded as a new boat design, we are talking about a question of degree and asking what constitutes an unfair copying method. Would you object if a boat designer, admiring your designs, looked at the hydrostatics supplied on your website or in Seakayaker, then arrived at an identical hull shape to a Max without enlarging the lines in a photocopier? I find this sort of fine discrimination about the method of take-off a little artificial and unreal. It is easier to say either that a boat shape has legal protection, or it does not, and if not, anyone may copy it, by whatever method they choose. At the moment, it appears there is no legal protection, so free for all applies. You win if you still make the best boats and out compete the mimics. That situation ends up with greater potential for the best boats to be developed. In a wider sense, all progress is based on what went before. Matt didn't have to invent the naval architecture principles laid out by Froude from scratch, nor the mathematical methods used in calculations, etc. No doubt Matt can say that he has had a considerable hand in applying these to sea kayaks, but his designs rest on a whole body of prior knowledge. The complaint is really, "Please protect my bit of originality from competition". There is a good public policy reason for some protection of highly original ideas: to give back some return for the costly investment in developing those. But even patents and copyright don't last forever. I think originality which falls short of very high level originality, should be open to copying and improvement, for the competing public policy reason that competition promotes better and better designs. The real protection is to out-compete the clone factories. Please email me your Nadgee picture. Drew owns the Nadgee you paddled. Cheers, PT. *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Peter Treby [mailto:ptreby_at_ozemail.com.au] wrote: >>>>>>>This thread is running several issues, the three I want to pick up being: 1. The general protection of sea kayak designs, or lack of it,<<<<<<< It is my understanding that new designs can apply a design patent but older designs (before the new law was passed) have no real protection at all. Their is nothing I can legally do about it, but that doesn't mean I have to shut up about it, does it? A Nadgee competitor who has seen both boats firsthand even offered to pay for an ad in Oz exposing the Nadgee as a copy. I did not take him up on his offer because I have sold only a few kayaks in Oz and did not consider the Nadgee as competition unless it started showing up in my markets. The builder convinced me that wasn't likely to happen. >>>>>>2. The specific instance of the Nadgee vs. Mariner<<<<<<< You have either been mislead or are trying to mislead the readers about this. Amid all this lawyer mumbo jumbo and misleading implications you offer, did you ever say absolutely that the Nadgee builder did not use the Max lines from Sea Kayaker magazine as his basis for the Nadgee Expedition's hull? Did you ever say that said builder didn't harden the chines on his prototype upon learning that the Max's chines were much harder than those on his prototype? If you have been mislead by the builder, I suggest you ask around to find others who might be in the know about this before continuing to deceive Paddlewisers. >>>>>3. The side issue of lawyer bashing. Commentary on this one is leading away from sea kayaking issues, so I won't fuel the fire, but I do get annoyed at idle snipes at lawyers. As Gordin pointed out, people are prone to casually slag off at lawyers in general, then rush to their own lawyer when trouble strikes.<<<<<< Lawyers are paid to make a good case for their client, not to discover the truth. In fact, if the truth is inconvenient for their client the lawyer does everything they legally can to obscure that truth (or to make a good case that it doesn't really matter). Many become very good at it. I compliment you on your legal skills, but why don't you cut the B.S. on Paddlewise. 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. >>>>>>>>Nadgee vs. Mariner, and general boat design protection: >>>>>>Message: don't bitch about your imitators, outdo them.<<<<<< I couldn't agree more. >>>>>>>Although the best way to compare would be placing a Nadgee beside the closest Mariner design and measuring<<<<<<< No, the best would be to take cross sections of both kayaks and match them up. It is easy to make a kayak longer or shorter, just by increasing or decreasing the distance that you put those cross sections apart. >>>>>>I have no doubt in my mind that the Nadgee is so different as to be a different boat, and not so close to any Mariner as to be a thoughtless ripoff.<<<<<< You should do a little more research before you loose your ability to doubt anything. >>>>>> The rest of the boat is very different. It has three bulkheads, VCP hatches, a day hatch, a fitted foot pump, perimeter decklines on the foredeck, an offset rear oval hatch to allow the spare paddle to be fitted and left in place, a much smaller cockpit opening, recessed deck fittings.<<<<<< All true, but the hull design is what was ripped-off. >>>>>>The hull does not have a distinctive ridge or runner like stern keel, rather it is faired into the hull shape.<<<<<< That is an outright lie. However, the very distinctive ridge or runner in the stern quarter is a little narrower on the Nadgee. Very likely this is because the Sea Kayaker cross sections which were copied weren't quite perfect so rapid changes (like hard chines) aren't rendered well. You obviously haven't seen a Max, the runner is also blended into the hull. In profile the distinctive runner on both kayaks is almost identical, very little rocker and then the runner curves up quickly near the stern and ends (out of the water) in a T shape in both kayaks. Some Mariner models (Max, Express, & Elan) and the Nadgee are the only two kayaks in the world that I'm aware of (and I'm aware of most of them) that look like this. >>>>>>Whatever variations the custom-built Nadgees have, including rudders on many, custom fitted bulkheads and variations, they fit Australian seaworthiness standards, and are designed to do this. No Mariner boat fits these standards, the conspicuous problems being lack of a hands-free pump, and no decklines around the foredeck.<<<<<<< How did these become "problems" rather than differences? The foot pumps I've tried in kayaks all ended up giving me cramps in my foot or calf. There are deck lines on the foredeck of all our kayaks. >>>>> I expect Matt to say these are mainly fit-out differences, but when they are all built in, they add up to making a different boat. A boat is not just a hull shape, and in any event, the Nadgee hull shape diverges from Mariner boats.<<<<<< Trying to have it both ways again are we? >>>>>It was never intended by its designer to be a copy of any Mariner boat. His design process was paper and pencil, build a test boat, modify it, refine it, and after lengthy testing, arrive at the Nadgee.<<<<< So that's how he blew up the cross sections from the magazine. Was it an overhead projector he used to project them onto the paper so he could trace them with a pencil at near full size? Well no, it was actually a copy machine with a zoom function. So then just how did the pencil get used? Why don't you ask to see the original set of cross sections he drew with his pencil, blow up the Sea Kayaker cross sections with an overhead projector and see if they are the same? You might question him in your lawyerly fashion about the basic process of drawing the lines of a boat beginning with the ideas in his head and then lofting and fairing them. I'll bet you could nail him to the wall in court with those kinds of questions because the odds are he can't tell you because he never did it. >>>>>>He has lately stated that he has never seen a Max in the flesh, and only seen two pictures of the Mariner Max in Sea Kayaker, and one of its hull on the Mariner website, only after finishing the Nadgee. I wonder if your attitude hasn't changed since you passed on the message to "wish him luck" (circa 1995)?<<<<<<< I know of no picture of the Max hull ever appearing on our website. Are you confusing this with the XL picture? 1995 was the year the Max was reviewed in Sea Kayaker so the Nadgee builder couldn't have even started building the prototype until then as he didn't have any plans yet. I first saw the Nadgee in 9/2002 and believe it wasn't in commercial production until 1999. I didn't paddle it until 9/03. I first tried to contact the builder in Dec. 2002 and he finally responded in Jan of 2003. You are right about how many pictures he saw before he started though, that would be the top view and the profile view in the Sea Kayaker review (along with them was the all important cross-sections he used that you have carefully avoided mentioning here). He would never have been able to make a good copy looking at pictures (or even looking at the boat itself and just taking a few measurements). If you want to make a good copy you need to either splash the hull (make a new mold directly from it) or, if you don't have the hull to mold, the next best way is to start with the cross sections. My attitude hasn't changed and I don't believe I wished him luck at the time (only "a good new year"). I no longer have any good reasons, that I can see now, not to talk about it (as I did have then). I'm about to retire so it won't likely be my problem even if it is imported. At the time I was in contact with the Nadgee's builder I hadn't yet paddled the Nadgee to discover that it wasn't as good as I had imagined it would be, while looking at the hull, before I paddled it (and there seemed a real risk I might be having to compete against my own design in our marketplace). I chose to stay on good terms with the builder so that I might become the distributor if it was going to be imported to the U.S. Much like I chose to stay on good terms with the builder of my kayaks (NWK at the time), even though we didn't like what they (the previous owners of NWK) were doing to compete and had there been other good alternatives readily available to get as good or better hulls and decks built locally we would have probably taken our business away from them far sooner than we eventually did. Remember, I didn't bring this subject up out of the blue on Paddlewise. I had realized from what you (Peter) were saying in the kayak "trim" discussion about your own kayak meant that your kayak was likely a Nadgee and therefore would be just like my Max in regards to maintaining its trim when adding a gear load (and therefore your trim finding method wouldn't even work correctly even for you because of that). Actually, it looks to me that you are a very competitive personality type (and have certainly found the right occupation--were you not also a competitive--class 14 level was it--rock climber as well?). I'd guess that not liking to be shown to be wrong in public, you chose to drop that trim discussion abruptly when you realized you were wrong and then chose to attack me, with all your lawyering skills sharpened, on a different front at the first opportunity. Steve soon provided that opportunity when bashing sliding seats, probably in retaliation for me pointing out that skegs in general had a thousand times the failure rate of the sliding seat (when someone lumped them together as both being failure prone mechanical devices). Although you had never seen a sliding seat you went for the jugular anyway and I recognized the lawyer type tactics and correctly guessed your profession. >>>>>>I am surprised to hear you (Matt) claiming that you would be upset at a Nadgee created in your market, when you have apparently done little about NW Kayaks, a couple of suburbs away from you. NW Kayaks hull design method, filling your mould with foam, hacking into the foam, then creating a boat, is closer to a flop mould ripoff than a designer in Australia using a SeaKayaker review along the way to creating a his boat.<<<<< While the Escape was originally our design it was inadvertently changed some (don't paint a plug black after putting a bunch of shrinkable filler on it and leave it out in the summer sun) in the plug fairing process by NWK and they owned that model's mold and had a license to sell that model to anybody they wanted. So you are wrong, that wasn't our mold they filled with foam. I think my previous paragraph explains why we did little about "flattery" from NWK even though we would have liked to many times. >>>>>The Nadgee's designer is no crook in this or any other respect. He is a hard working craftsman who makes high quality boats, and who has developed a number of very practical new features on his boats, not seen on yours, and which, if both boats were available in the same market, would make me lean towards the Nadgee.<<<<<< Did he start with the Max lines or not? Did he pay for them if he did? Yes, if you never paddled both of them (like I have) you might well lean that way. Your loss for making decisions without more evidence. >>>>>>Why don't you adopt these features for your boats? I would be surprised if Mariners fitted with bulkheads, day hatches, thick perimeter decklines, and a good foot pump, did not sell, and maybe very well. Look at how many sea kayaks with the three hatch arrangement are selling. It is a good, practical arrangement. The addition of these features to the type of hull you have developed, a rudderless hull that works, creates a new and better boat.<<<<<< Day hatches are a fad, but now that they have become popular (and many manufacturers have jumped on the bandwagon) many more users are discovering that while it looked to be a good idea on paper that third bulkhead severely impacts their useable storage space (and many who have them have told me they don't like them). I might sell more kayaks with them but I wouldn't be doing my customers any favors by doing so. Recessed deck lines are hard to get a hold on because they are pulled down into the deck every few feet. I also dislike the bumps the recesses make in the storage space and especially in the foot area of many kayaks (more so when a nut to hold the fitting in the recess also sets on top of those big inward bumps). In general recessed fittings are not as strong as the nylon eyelets we use and they can't usually be repositioned (since they are in the mold) to customize the deck arrangement for an individual customer. The bow painter on our kayak functions as a far easier to grab deck line (than a recessed one). We can (or the customer can later) easily add (unnecessary in my opinion) perimeter deck lines to the bow for any customer that wants or needs them. I don't like cramps in my foot or legs when kayaking. >>>>>>>You say you have no problem with someone making a kayak like the ones you have designed. So your objection is really that they shouldn't do this by the easiest method, say by flop moulding (= splashing a hull). Like whether a boat is a copy or is sufficiently different to be regarded as a new boat design, we are talking about a question of degree and asking what constitutes an unfair copying method. Would you object if a boat designer, admiring your designs, looked at the hydrostatics supplied on your website or in Seakayaker, then arrived at an identical hull shape to a Max without enlarging the lines in a photocopier? I find this sort of fine discrimination about the method of take-off a little artificial and unreal. It is easier to say either that a boat shape has legal protection, or it does not, and if not, anyone may copy it, by whatever method they choose. At the moment, it appears there is no legal protection, so free for all applies. You win if you still make the best boats and out compete the mimics. That situation ends up with greater potential for the best boats to be developed.<<<<<<< I might not like it if a competitor made a kayak nearly identical to one of mine by your proposed method. In a sense if he was able to get it identical (highly unlikely) I'd say he certainly lacked any originality but at least he didn't also steal our considerable labor in lofting and fairing the hull as well but did his own. The fact is that very few would be capable of copying a design accurately by your proposed method. Even if they did all the physical work themselves (other than the conceptual and experimental work we had done for them) if the kayak looked nearly identical most of the public would assume that a hull had been splashed and also assume the copy-cat was a crook. That is why most design crooks make cosmetic changes to the core design to try to disguise its true origins. most of the public is fooled but a designer knows his design intimately and can still recognize it in the copy. I disagree with your last sentence. What fool is going to put in years of work developing a product that he knows will just be ripped off by some big deep pocket company if he is lucky enough to make it a success after all his hard work. If the originator doesn't proceed then everyone loses. >>>>>>In a wider sense, all progress is based on what went before. Matt didn't have to invent the naval architecture principles laid out by Froude from scratch, nor the mathematical methods used in calculations, etc. No doubt Matt can say that he has had a considerable hand in applying these to sea kayaks, but his designs rest on a whole body of prior knowledge. The complaint is really, "Please protect my bit of originality from competition". There is a good public policy reason for some protection of highly original ideas: to give back some return for the costly investment in developing those. But even patents and copyright don't last forever. I think originality which falls short of very high level originality, should be open to copying and improvement, for the competing public policy reason that competition promotes better and better designs. The real protection is to out-compete the clone factories.<<<<< After his closing arguments the defense rests. Yes, copying and even splashing may all be legal, but it is not ethical, and you know it (but chose to take the case anyway). Here is a website that says it is copyrighted to us and implies that the reader who found it by typing "Mariner Kayaks" into Google has arrived at our website. We had nothing to do with it. Is it legal? I don't know. Is it a fraud? You bet. A few years ago I complained (but just try to figure out who is really behind this) and sent notice of it to several other manufacturers who were also effected (bigger companies that probably had lawyers on retainer who might convince them to stop this sort of thing). I just checked. Nothing has changed. http://www.navydiver.net/inflatable-kayaks/Mariner-Kayaks.html Matt Broze 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/ ***************************************************************************
Warning, long post. Make yourself a coffee, sit down, get comfortable. I offered to continue this off the list after receiving an email stating that it was getting too personal, and asked John and Matt, who have continued posting on list, so on we go. I have now become aware of the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act (US), and would be interested in anyone who knows something of this legislation contributing to Paddlewise. It appears that there is similar legislation in the European Union. I don't know of anything similar in Australia, but it is possible that the situation may change if a Free Trade Agreement between Australia and the US comes into being, and Australia is pressed into aligning its intellectual property rights with the US. This legislation apparently allows a designer bringing a new hull shape out to register it within two years, and gain protection from copying for some period of time (how long?). I would think this legislation would need to be reviewed after a few years of operation, to try and determine if the protection has encouraged a more viable boat industry, or suppressed design development, or is too expensive, etc. I wonder what is treated as a copy for the purposes of this legislation. One of the real issues in this discussion is the one John stated: What is a copy? I lobbed back "That is a question of fact". But the more I think about that, the more it seems intertwined with its context. Who is asking the question, and for what purpose? 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. Matt: "Their is nothing I can legally do about it, but that doesn't mean I have to shut up about it, does it?" Not at all, in fact where legal protection does not exist, sounding off may help. It'll make you feel better anyway. "A Nadgee competitor who has seen both boats firsthand even offered to pay for an ad in Oz exposing the Nadgee as a copy." And you think I'm conspiring! "Exposing" the Nadgee as a copy! That competitor would need to consider his position in relation to defamation. I think negative advertising attacking the competition is less appealing to the market than positive advertising. Are there any marketers watching in on Paddlewise? Is that sort of advertising worth paying for? Getting away from sea kayaking here, but it is interesting. I seem to notice more direct negative advertising in the last two years or so, lately with supermarket-sold pain killing medication Nadgee vs.Mariner "You have either been mislead or are trying to mislead the readers about this." I don't think I am misled, and I am not trying to mislead. 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. Since you now seem prepared to call him a crook, I'm surprised that you haven't taken this issue up directly with him in the past. 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. Perhaps you haven't felt the need, because the issue is old hat, and as you rightly say, you are not in the same market and haven't suffered any loss, which you now complain about in the context of a Paddlewise discussion. Legal systems parallel these ideas, there are limitation periods to stop people bellyaching many years after some slight, and there usually won't be any legal recourse where there is no damage. "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." 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. "Although the best way to compare would be placing Nadgee beside the closest Mariner design and measuring< No, the best would be to take cross sections of both kayaks and match them up." Agreed, said as much back channel. "Placing them side by side" was a figure of speech, really. If I attempted this, I would take overall measurements, length, beam, depth, at various points, and take patterns of the cross sections at various points, as if to make a cedar strip boat. Once done, these sections could be mapped one on the other, and compared. >The hull does not have a distinctive ridge or runner like stern keel, rather it is faired into the hull shape.< "That is an outright lie." Be polite. I own a Nadgee, I know what the keel looks like. It differs from the picture of the XL hull. I still haven't received your image of the Nadgee, as offered. "You obviously haven't seen a Max." No, I haven't and I am prepared to accept the limitations of what I know in this exercise. The hull similarities you point to don't make the Nadgee a Max, nor a ripoff to me. It is actually important to me to feel OK about the boat I paddle. While I am pointing out that there is no apparent legal problem, as far as I know, in my jurisdiction, with a direct flop mould type ripoff, (as long as it is not "passing off") I wouldn't want to support that behaviour by buying such a boat, for the very same reasons as you advance as your reasons for disliking copies. 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. ".Australian seaworthiness standards, and are designed to do this. No Mariner boat fits these standards, the conspicuous problems being lack of a hands-free pump, and no decklines around the foredeck.< How did these become "problems" rather than differences? " New topic, which I've always wanted to tackle, and I hope this isn't just a two-way discussion. Problems or differences, I think a seaworthy boat must have handy and effective lines to grip on front and back decks. Perimeter decklines are a good solution, and they should be thick enough not to cut into wet soft hands. They are needed by a swimmer to keep hold of the boat, and by a rescuer holding onto a boat while the swimmer gets back in. 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. "The foot pumps I've tried in kayaks all ended up giving me cramps in my foot or calf. " 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 that's how he blew up the cross sections from the magazine. Was it an overhead projector he used to project them onto the paper so he could trace them with a pencil at near full size? Well no, it was actually a copy machine with a zoom function. So then just how did the pencil get used? Why don't you ask to see the original set of cross sections he drew with his pencil, blow up the Sea Kayaker cross sections with an overhead projector and see if they are the same? You might question him in your lawyerly fashion about the basic process of drawing the lines of a boat beginning with the ideas in his head and then lofting and fairing them. I'll bet you could nail him to the wall in court with those kinds of questions because the odds are he can't tell you because he never did it." 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. If you want the detail, get on to him directly, I'm not the go-between for your recently whipped up vendetta. I won't be assisting you in trying to nail him, as you put it. ". your kayak was likely a Nadgee and therefore would be just like my Max in regards to maintaining its trim when adding a gear load (and therefore your trim finding method wouldn't even work correctly even for you because of that)." My trim method seems to work well. There must be something lost in communication here. "Actually, it looks to me that you are a very competitive personality type (and have certainly found the right occupation--were you not also a competitive--class 14 level was it--rock climber as well?)." A sideline confession, the number 14 can't be used in relation to me and climbing. I have only climbed to 5.11, 21/22, and have never climbed at the top level. I'd love to leave a vague impression that I have had something to do with the 5.14 level, but that was never even a faint possibility. " I'd guess that not liking to be shown to be wrong in public, you chose to drop that trim discussion abruptly when you realized you were wrong and then chose to attack me, with all your lawyering skills sharpened, on a different front at the first opportunity. Steve soon provided that opportunity when bashing sliding seats, probably in retaliation for me pointing out that skegs in general had a thousand times the failure rate of the sliding seat (when someone lumped them together as both being failure prone mechanical devices). Although you had never seen a sliding seat you went for the jugular anyway and I recognized the lawyer type tactics and correctly guessed your profession." Matt, you give me more credit for conspiracy than I am capable of. I am quite prepared to be shown to be wrong if I am wrong, and note different and valid choices in sea kayaking issues. And obviously, I am quite prepared to put up questions and argue a point, because something educational and useful comes out of that, sometimes. Anyone who doesn't have a taste for this sort of process can simply hit the delete button, and not get affronted. In fact, the sliding seat matter brought to my attention something I didn't know, that your sliding seat is easily moved back while underwater. I said at the end of that discussion, that this moderated my line on restraining the slide forward. Prove me wrong, go for it. I will keep asking questions and lobbing ideas in now and them. Come in if you are interested. "NW Kayaks...I think my previous paragraph explains why we did little about "flattery" from NWK even though we would have liked to many times." Well if you bring out any more models, get some legal advice about the VHDPA. "Day hatches are a fad, but now that they have become popular (and many manufacturers have jumped on the bandwagon) many more users are discovering that while it looked to be a good idea on paper that third bulkhead severely impacts their useable storage space (and many who have them have told me they don't like them)." 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. I have paddled a boat with a hatch in the deck right in front of the cockpit. The hatch box provides knee bracing. That seems worth developing. The offset day hatch behind the paddler has a few issues: leaving the lid off is one. Difficulty accessing the far side, flooding (it is best considered as a wet area), preventing loading heavy gear close up behind the cockpit. Like many fit-out choices, it is a compromise and not perfect. "Recessed deck lines are hard to get a hold on because they are pulled down into the deck every few feet." I disagree. (How tempting it is to say "That is a downright lie!") 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. "You win if you still make the best boats and out compete the mimics. That situation ends up with greater potential for the best boats to be developed.< I disagree with your last sentence. What fool is going to put in years of work developing a product that he knows will just be ripped off by some big deep pocket company if he is lucky enough to make it a success after all his hard work. If the originator doesn't proceed then everyone loses." 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? "After his closing arguments the defense rests. Yes, copying and even splashing may all be legal, but it is not ethical, and you know it (but chose to take the case anyway)." 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. "Here is a website that says it is copyrighted to us and implies that the reader who found it by typing "Mariner Kayaks" into Google has arrived at our website. We had nothing to do with it. Is it legal? I don't know." There is a developing field of law as applied to IT. I think there are a few legal possibilities to shut this down. Check it out. Seattle must have a pretty high concentration of lawyers familiar with the law in this area. Be sure to check if the defendant is somebody or some corporation of substance before wasting your time proceeding. Whoops, free legal advice! 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. Cheers, PT. *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Quoting Peter Treby <ptreby_at_ozemail.com.au>: <Very long snip> > The Nordkapp was modelled on a Greenland boat in a museum. > Frank Goodman makes the Nordkapp in the UK, around 1977. It was the Anas Acuta that was modeled on a Greenland kayak. At the Great Lakes Sea Kayak Symposium a few years ago, Sam Cooke, a member of the 1975 Nordkapp expedition, told us that the expedition members, who up till then had mostly paddled Anas Acutas, asked Frank Goodman to design a longer kayak with a rounder hull for greater capacity and speed. After difficulties with rescues in the uncompartmented Anas Acuta, they also requested bulkheads, which Goodman was reluctant to add out of concern about stress points, hatch covers, which the expedition members designed, a built-in bilge pump, safety lines, and a well behind the cockpit for a watertight canister that served the same function as today's day hatches. The result was the classic Nordkapp kayak, which Goodman later put into commercial production. 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. Chuck Holst *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
In a message dated 8/10/2004 10:15:45 AM Pacific Daylight Time, cholst_at_bitstream.net writes: > 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. > According to an article by Duncan Winning in the late Ocean Paddler Magazine it was Geoff Blackford that made the changes to the Igldorssuit kayak, ultimately morphing into the Anas Acuta, licensed to Frank Goodman. Rob G *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Quoting Rcgibbert_at_aol.com: > In a message dated 8/10/2004 10:15:45 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > cholst_at_bitstream.net writes: > > > > 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. > > > > According to an article by Duncan Winning in the late Ocean Paddler Magazine > > it was Geoff Blackford that made the changes to the Igldorssuit kayak, > ultimately morphing into the Anas Acuta, licensed to Frank Goodman. > > Rob G > Thank you for clarifying this. I was working from a sometimes faulty memory. Chuck Holst *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
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/ ***************************************************************************
This is a real question as I find the dialog about boat copying somewhat baffling: I work in the semiconductor industry. SOP is to copy anything which is better than what you already have and that doesn't infringe on either patents or copyrights. Even in the case of patents, we do as much reverse engineering is possible to find non-defensible elements or to learn enough to find alternate methods which do not infringe. Ideas which not patented or patentable for one reason or another are simply not protected in any way. Why is the kayak industry any different, or why should it be different? Steve Brown -----Original Message----- Lots of words about boat copying *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Steve, I think part of the answer is that we hope __copiers__ of boats have a higher ethical standard than those in "other" industries. [tongue formly in cheek] -- Dave Kruger Astoria, OR ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Brown" <steve_at_brown-web.net> > This is a real question as I find the dialog about boat copying somewhat > baffling: > Ideas which not patented or patentable for one reason or another are simply > not protected in any way. > Why is the kayak industry any different, or why should it be different? *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Matt asked: "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?" Asking these sorts of comparison questions is why you need to know who is asking and for what purpose. The clearest and easiest answer is that anything short of a fully identical shape is not a copy for the purpose of legal protection. A broadly similar hull style, let us say round bilges, concave fine bow sections, long overhang, may be a reminder of a Nordkapp, but I can't see cause for complaint about copying. A convex V-bow, swede form, stern keeled boat may be in the same general boat shape family as a Mariner, but not be a copy. For purposes other than attaching legal rights, a designer might look at a boat and detect resemblances to his own designs, and there may be, but if the boat is not identical, when is it legitimate for the designer to squawk "ripoff" and when not? How much new design work, or in Matt's world, how little change does the thief need to apply to deceive, before a boat design is new? I am reduced to just posing these questions, because try as I might, I can't come up with anything better than something like "It's a matter of degree." It is in fact much easier not to allow that the designer should be offended at all, and go with Steve Brown and the semi-conductor industry practice: if it's not illegal, it's acceptable, and the basis for new developments. "Why don't you answer the simple questions I put to you in my last long post?" For the reasons set out in my last long post. I've asked once, I've received an answer satisfactory to me and relayed it. And a further one, I fear an endless series of questions from you beyond the next answer. At the end of that unwelcome cross examination of my friend, if there was an end, you would not be satisfied that the Nadgee was not a copy of the Max, and I would not be satisfied that it is. Another reason to suggest you'd be better going direct, is that chinese whispers lose accuracy in telling. Just look at thestory of the Nordkapp to see how things get changed in the telling, and accuracy lost. Here is another possible, but troublesome and expensive method of checking for direct hull copying. Take a mould off one boat, and place the boat to be compared inside it. For this purpose, the mould materials do not need to be made as robust as a production mould. I am confident the Nadgee is highly likely to pass such a comparison. "If the visiting paddler told me I don't recall it now" Your lack of memory serves you well. "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." Do you approve of one-off copies of your boats being made by do-it-yourselfers? ">>I don't agree that two boats with the same hulls cannot be different boats if they differ in other respects< So it appears you are saying here that the hull of the Nadgee is substantially the same as the Max." No. I would ask "What do you mean by substantially?", but I think that leads back to vagaries and subjective opinions. "Had Sea Kayaker's section lines showed the keel better I suspect the Nadgee would be even closer in this respect than it is." You are being too suspicious. For you to come up with that sort of supposition makes me certain that one enquiry of Dave is enough. Comparing my boat, and my photograph of the stern of the Nadgee, with the Mariner XL photograph on your website, they are different. You will believe that they are different because of faults in the copying method, I will accept that Dave was not copying the Max, and came up with his own keel shape. ">>>>>>>>>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." That wouldn't have any effect for an identical copy made by flop moulding. The copies I am thinking of are poorer because the copiers are not sea kayakers interested in the sort of trips for which the boats were designed, they are outdoor industry people perhaps just interested in seeing the bottom line numbers. It usually appears to be because the flop copier is cutting costs in construction, and doesn't lay up the boat as soundly or fit it out as well. There's a tip for boat buyers: buy your boat from someone who paddles real trips. "So far the electric pumps have been a hard sell in the Seattle market." That must be partly due to culture and habit. If a bit of effort by a long standing senior figure in the sea kayaking world was put in to get the idea out there, the culture could change. Give it a shot before retiring and travelling the world paddling. "The foot pumps I've seen only have a small fraction of the output of a good hand pump." The foot pump fitted to my boat is slower than a hand pump, but not a small fraction of the output. This slower output is outweighed by the ability to paddle at the same time as pumping. I sometimes carry a handpump as well, when expecting to paddle with people who might not have their boats properly fitted out. One drawback of fitted foot pumps is that you can't use them to empty someone else's boat. "Which particular raised fittings do you think you would bark your knuckles on?" Several I have seen fitted here. Some raised deckline fittings are worse than others, but just as you don't like lumps and bolts under the deck, I don't like hard lumps above the deck, as far as they can be avoided. "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." Careless stuff. Take out the "well respected". I am not proposing that, and no reading of what I have said should conclude that. The risk at present, with little practical legal protection (here), is there already. That risk does not stop anyone (that you or I know of) making kayaks. I am not advocating taking identical copies and going into competition. I am not advocating taking copies without seeking permission, whether it is required or not. "Copying seems to be rampant down under." And everywhere else. "Others have straightened you out about the origins of the Nordkapp." But the point of the story was not the precise history (interesting though that is). Using previous designs as the basis for the next development is the way to progress. "I'd love to have every kayak designer hooked up to a (perfect) lie detector and ask them just how their designs came about." You are suspecting what I say is an advantage for the kayak buying public. Do you know of other chains of kayak development other than the descendants of the Nordkapp? You have data on 700+ boats. Do some DNA testing and trace them all back to a few common ancestors. Cheers Peter Treby *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Peter Treby [mailto:ptreby_at_ozemail.com.au] wrote Subject: Re: Nadgee, Max, Boat Copying >>>>>>For purposes other than attaching legal rights, a designer might look at a boat and detect resemblances to his own designs, and there may be, but if the boat is not identical, when is it legitimate for the designer to squawk "ripoff" and when not? <<<<< When the copy-cat has used the designer's work to save himself a lot of hard work then it is a rip-off. That makes the Nadgee a rip-off. >>>>>>How much new design work, or in Matt's world, how little change does the thief need to apply to deceive, before a boat design is new? I am reduced to just posing these questions, because try as I might, I can't come up with anything better than something like "It's a matter of degree."<<<<<<< He can do all the new design and modification work in the world and completely disguise the fact that it is a rip-off but if he started with the designers work in a direct manner, such as splashing a mold off an existing kayak or used the designers offsets or a reproduction of them as a starting point, without permission, then he has ripped-off the designer. If he looks at and paddles several designs, and then, starting from scratch, incorporates features or similarities to those shapes in his own design he has not ripped-off the work of those designers that inspired him to make a part of his kayak similar. If you use the same words but change the font and font size, is it not still plagiarism? If you read several authors and then write your own article based on what you read but don't use the same words it is known as research and no plagiarism has been committed. The rip-off is in saving yourself effort by using the work of another without their permission. That definition seems pretty simple and unambiguous to me. Just because it looks something like another kayak does not make it a rip-off unless the claim is made that it is the same as the other, to play on the first designs reputation, then that is fraud rather than theft. That is why I keep asking you if the Nadgee builder started with offsets from the Max. Because that is so and is likely why you keep trying to dodge that question. >>>>>>"Why don't you answer the simple questions I put to you in my last long post?" For the reasons set out in my last long post. I've asked once, I've received an answer satisfactory to me and relayed it.<<<<<< That answer you received also dodged the issue, didn't it?. You, the lawyer, are somehow satisfied with it none the less. You either don't want to know or don't want to say what you know. >>>>>And a further one, I fear an endless series of questions from you beyond the next answer. At the end of that unwelcome cross examination of my friend, if there was an end, you would not be satisfied that the Nadgee was not a copy of the Max, and I would not be satisfied that it is. <<<<<<< That is pretty presumptuous. I'd say you are projecting what you do as a lawyer, onto me, to fear this. The only other question I can think of is one I've already asked (that you have also already dodged). Did the Nadgee builder change the prototype to add harder chines when he found out the Max had harder chines? >>>>>>>Another reason to suggest you'd be better going direct, is that chinese whispers lose accuracy in telling. Just look at thestory of the Nordkapp to see how things get changed in the telling, and accuracy lost.<<<<<< I've already heard from those involved. I want to know what you were told by the builder. That is something you have direct knowledge of so nothing will be lost in the whispering hearsay you claim to be worried about. I can understand you not wanting to hound your friend further about this, I'm only asking what exactly he told you about the relation of the Max to the Nadgee. Here is another possible, but troublesome and expensive method of checking for direct hull copying. Take a mould off one boat, and place the boat to be compared inside it. For this purpose, the mould materials do not need to be made as robust as a production mould. I am confident the Nadgee is highly likely to pass such a comparison.<<<<<<<< That method won't work because a slight modification to make the hull (or even the keel) wider or longer in some area would make it not fit in the originals mold even if it had been splashed in the first place. Since the Nadgee was made from offsets simply putting them a fraction of an inch further apart than the original would make that kind of rip-off not fit in the originals mold. a further confounding is that molds often warp some due to shrinkage and how they are stored. >>>>>>>>"If the visiting paddler told me I don't recall it now" Your lack of memory serves you well.<<<<<<< I don't see how. What difference would it make? If I was told, I wasn't told that this kayak was going to be sold commercially and possibly compete against me using my own design. The only trouble I have with individuals ripping off my designs (and I have given my permission in the past to individuals who asked me to use the Sea Kayaker offsets as a basis for a one off hull) is with their hull later finding its way into mass production and competing with me in the marketplace. For example, a friend has made kayaks based on the Coaster and Mariner II with our permission and advice. We have granted permission, but we always extracted the promise that they would not let anyone else copy the design or mold their boat, and explain why. My friend was offered a tidy sum to let a builder splash his Coaster-like kayak. In another instance, I suggested to a guy (who wanted to buy plans from us) that he could blow up the Sea Kayaker offsets for the Max and we gave him permission to do so as long as he not pass on the design to others. Unfortunately, he found the offsets not close enough to the Max for his liking and made a device to copy the Max exactly to get its offsets directly from a boat (something I definitely did not give my permission for him to do, but he took it that way because I suppose we had been so helpful and accommodating to him). We helped this builder out in several other ways along the way mainly with free advice. Later, I find out that he is telling everyone on a home builder's forum how to build the equipment to rip-off other designer's hulls and he claimed his doing this had my full approval and blessing and even suggested us as a great resource (unpaid consultants) to anyone who wanted to do this kind of thing themselves. To say the least, I was horrified when I found out. >>>>>>>"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." Do you approve of one-off copies of your boats being made by do-it-yourselfers?<<<<<<< If they ask my permission and agree to my terms (mainly to never pass on the design to others or go into business with it) I have in the past, several times. I'd be more hesitant today because of my past experiences though (some detailed above). >>>>>>"Had Sea Kayaker's section lines showed the keel better I suspect the Nadgee would be even closer in this respect than it is." You are being too suspicious. For you to come up with that sort of supposition makes me certain that one enquiry of Dave is enough. Comparing my boat, and my photograph of the stern of the Nadgee, with the Mariner XL photograph on your website, they are different. You will believe that they are different because of faults in the copying method, I will accept that Dave was not copying the Max, and came up with his own keel shape.<<<<<<< He had to come up with his own shape there, he had little to go by in that area (how the rib-keel blended in with the hull) because of the limitations of the offsets he worked from, but the profile view was good, and he copied that profile view of the keel very well indeed. The fact that he hardened the chines on the Nadgee when he found out they were harder on the Max makes your contention that he wasn't trying to make a copy seem kind of foolish. >>>>>>>>"The foot pumps I've seen only have a small fraction of the output of a good hand pump." The foot pump fitted to my boat is slower than a hand pump, but not a small fraction of the output. <<<<<<<<< We need to define "small fraction" here. To me that means 1/4 or less. How much slower is your foot pump? What brand or type is it? Could you describe it? What hand pump are you using? What are its dimensions and rated output? Sea kayaker found the gray and red Beckson hand pump (with the roughly 2" by 18" tube) put out about 4 times the output of the deck mounted Henderson "Chimp" hand pump once widely used on British sea kayaks.. >>>>>>"Which particular raised fittings do you think you would bark your knuckles on?" Several I have seen fitted here. Some raised deckline fittings are worse than others, but just as you don't like lumps and bolts under the deck, I don't like hard lumps above the deck, as far as they can be avoided.<<<<<<< I was referring to which specific eyelets on Mariner kayaks were the ones that you felt you might bark your knuckles on. I was asking you to be specific about which ones might give you trouble (rather than just make the blanket and vague condemnation you made). Could you be specific about which eyelets you might hit with your knuckles? For example; today I looked at a Romany Explorer on a car in the parking lot. It had little plastic recessed fittings with a metal bar across them embedded into the deck in many places. The hard melted end knots from the cords stuck out right in the area where ones hands cross the deck during on nearly every kayak stroke. Now that's something I might bloody my knuckles on. I'd suggest the user should move those hard knots to somewhere else on the deck if it is possible. >>>>>>>"I'd love to have every kayak designer hooked up to a (perfect) lie detector and ask them just how their designs came about." You are suspecting what I say is an advantage for the kayak buying public. Do you know of other chains of kayak development other than the descendants of the Nordkapp? You have data on 700+ boats. Do some DNA testing and trace them all back to a few common ancestors.<<<<<<< I have data on well over 3000 single kayak models worldwide, of those I've only been able to paddle about 750 (mostly North American ones and those imported here). I know of many lines of development. For instance, Derek Hutchinson has about 20 models (if you count different cockpit sizes as different models anyhow) but basically they are modifications of two early hull designs--that I think were his originally--its hard to know for sure about that). BTW, it is perfectly okay to rip-off your own designs in any way you want and change them for better or worse in any way you want. I could list a lot of rumors I've heard about which kayaks were rip-offs of other kayaks but I have no real proof of most of them. At times I've gotten a chance to look at some of those hulls side by side and in many cases I'd say the rumors are probably true. Being still in the kayak industry, and therefore could be seen as having an axe to grind, I'm not going to start passing on those rumors here, just yet anyhow. As an amateur student of modern kayak history though, I don't mind collecting these rumors, and recording them in my personal notes as such. So if anybody has a rumor they have heard (or better still good evidence) please e-mail me about it and I'll let you know if I've heard it before or not and what evidence there may be that it is true or not. BTW, Howard Jeffs may be connected to the Anas Chick (a small version of the Anas Acuta he is reported to have made for his children). This may be what caused the confusion about where the Anas Acuta came from (that was corrected earlier). BTW, Anas Acuta means "sharp ass" and is the Latin name for the "Northern Pintail" duck. Matt Broze 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/ ***************************************************************************
Matt, I'm leaving the Nadgee vs Max issue, it is not progressing. An answer by me to most of your last post would just be repetition. Let me relinquish the Badger crown to you. Foot pumps: >>>We need to define "small fraction" here. To me that means 1/4 or less. How much slower is your foot pump? What brand or type is it? Could you describe it? What hand pump are you using? What are its dimensions and rated output? Sea kayaker found the gray and red Beckson hand pump (with the roughly 2" by 18" tube) put out about 4 times the output of the deck mounted Henderson "Chimp" hand pump once widely used on British sea kayaks..<<< I will conduct some tests and let you know, and post on Paddlewise. But the capacity of the pump is only part of a rescue/recovery. I think the overall time to, say, re-enter and roll, and start paddling, is less with a foot pump, as the pumping can continue while under way. The time that matters is time taken to get paddling again after a capsize. Deck fittings "I was referring to which specific eyelets on Mariner kayaks were the ones that you felt you might bark your knuckles on." Wasn't saying you have any badly sited fittings. I haven't seen a Mariner and don't know how rounded the fittings are, my comments were general, hard raised fittings might cause a knock wherever they are compared to recessed fittings. I don't think it is a desperate issue. The sharp turns of the boat are themselves a risk: check this: http://www.pioneerlocal.com/cgi-bin/ppo-story/localnews/current/gl/08-12-04-359464.html "For example; today I looked at a Romany Explorer on a car in the parking lot. It had little plastic recessed fittings with a metal bar across them embedded into the deck in many places. The hard melted end knots from the cords stuck out right in the area where ones hands cross the deck during on nearly every kayak stroke." I'd modify that for sure. Looking at the deck plan http://www.seakayakgeorgia.com/ndk.htm I would worry about catching my hand somewhere while paddling. Kayak history "As an amateur student of modern kayak history though, I don't mind collecting these rumors, and recording them in my personal notes as such." You might be well placed to write a history of sea kayaking in your retirement. Cheers, PT. *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Peter, for some reason your response came before my original on Paddlewise again. This time I don't think it was my fault. My later e-mail asking about the Seguin designer was also published ahead of it. Peter wrote concerning padeyes: >>>>>>The sharp turns of the boat are themselves a risk: check this: http://www.pioneerlocal.com/cgi-bin/ppo-story/localnews/current/gl/08-12-04- 359464.html<<<< I didn't know about this "stabbing by kayak" incident until I read the above article. A few months ago, though, I wrote on Paddlewise: "I could put the shoe on the other foot: Peter, you paddle a kayak with pointed ends in the surf. You therefore risk spearing an innocent victim with your dagger like bow. You should be aware that this is a possibility and therefore at least pad your pointed bow and stern with some large blunt soft item. In fact, I think Australia, having such an abundance of surf, should pass a law that each end of any kayak made from now on should have a large clown nose ball-shaped bow and stern so if that kayak is used in the surf then it would be less of a danger to the paddler, swimmers, surfacing skin divers, and near surface wildlife in the area. All kayaks without round blunt ends should need to be retrofitted or retired within the next two years. Since any kayak could potentially be used in the surf maybe all kayaks worldwide should have this blunt bow and stern shape and all kayakers should also be required to buy a helmet to go with any kayak they buy kayak just in case that kayak might at some time be used in the surf." Looking further back in my old saved e-mails I found these from the land of Oz: "You guessed right. (Name of builder) liked the lines on the Mariner Max, so he got the cross-sections out of the Sea Kayaker. He blew them up on a photocopier and then cut the stations out of chipboard and mounted them on an aluminum tube. He then skinned it with heavy cardboard and bogged it to final shape. When I visited you in 1996, I paddled the Max (and liked it.) You may recall that I mentioned to you at the time about (Name's) efforts in Australia. After I got back to Oz, I told (Name) the Max had CHINES, which the computer had rounded off. He bogged some on and made a fiberglass prototype by using the mock-up as a male mold. The prototype was pretty heavy and rough on the outside, but gave him an idea of what changes he wanted to make. He subsequently made a number of modifications and started production. " The builder was CC'ed this, so knew what I'd been told already. I contacted the builder about his intentions in regards to sales in America. This is a small part of his response in Jan. of 2003. "As (Name) told you, I got the profiles from your Max out of Sea Kayaker magazine, enlarged them and overlaid them on the profiles I had already drawn." So you were right Peter, it looks likely I was told that someone in Oz was attempting to use the Max offsets in Sea Kayaker to make himself a kayak (although I still don't recall that part of the long conversations I had with the visitor eight years ago). But, if you knew that I had been informed about this, then you must also have known about the builders use of the Max offsets from your informant. Why couldn't you admit such on this forum? I certainly gave you many chances. Also, please recall that you opened this whole can of worms by asking a direct question to me: "No guess necessary, as posted several times, a Nadgee Expedition. What is the hull design history of this boat?" I answered your direct question. Do you always find it this hard to answer direct questions? Does this have something to do with your training or profession? Is answering direct questions something I should learn to avoid doing, as well? Matt Broze 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/ ***************************************************************************
Matt wrote, >I think Australia, having such an abundance of surf, >should pass a law that each end of any kayak made >from now on should have a large clown nose ball-shaped >bow and stern so if that kayak is used in the surf >then it would be less of a danger to the paddler, >swimmers, surfacing skin divers, G'Day Matt, Joking apart, in Oz there are so many highly populated surf beaches. Landing in surf with swimmers, divers or surfers around would be something I'ld avoid like the plague. But I'm not a skilled surfer. However, I don't know too many kayakers here who would land in big surf amongst swimmers. I do know several groups who in wild and extremely uncomfortable conditions have paddled kilometers further down the coast to avoid landing at a populated beach. All the best, PeterO *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Matt wrote: > I think Australia, having > such an abundance of surf, should pass a law that each end of any kayak made > from now on should have a large clown nose ball-shaped bow and stern so if > that kayak is used in the surf then it would be less of a danger to the > paddler, swimmers, surfacing skin divers, and near surface wildlife in the > area. All kayaks without round blunt ends should need to be retrofitted or > retired within the next two years. Since any kayak could potentially be used > in the surf maybe all kayaks worldwide should have this blunt bow and stern > shape and all kayakers should also be required to buy a helmet to go with > any kayak they buy kayak just in case that kayak might at some time be used > in the surf." and while were at it make them wear an 8 foot pole w/ a neon orange flag, require operator insurance, and we could hang license plates and regstration numbers on them too. Require drivers license and mandatory instructional cources for the operator, and as all this cost money to manage we should tax them too. And as they are recreatioanal and not truly needed items, kayaks are luxury toys after all, we should also tax them at a punnitive rate. The GVT department of Fun controll.???? A fun Tax????? Fun Police- - - -we are here to protect you from your own foolishnes???? Bound and determined to deffeat Darwin's principle. AAAAAGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!! I think the kayaker that shiskebobed the other fellow ought to paint a little X'd out stick figgure on the side of his boat. Get six of them and your an Ace!!!!!!! ;-) just my two cents!!!! michael *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
For those who have followed this thread and would like to take a look at what the two kayaks look like here are three views of each (actually the vertical one is a Mariner XL but the distribution of buoyancy is nearly the same as the Max and compares best with the last picture of the Nadgee). http://www.marinerkayaks.com/images/MaxNadgeeCompare.htm If that link doesn't work, try going to our home page and scrolling down until you see the red "What's new?" section. Just a bit above that, the period at the end of the "Stolen Kayaks" paragraph, there is a period that is also a link. Click on (or just above) that period to open a new window which contains the six photos. Matt Broze 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/ ***************************************************************************
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 01:22:42 -0700 "Matt Broze" <mkayaks_at_oz.net> wrote: > For those who have followed this thread and would like to take a look at > what the two kayaks look like here are three views of each ...<snip>... Wow, I'm impressed! It looks like the "designer" of the Nadgee did an excellent job of copying the Max. I'll bet it paddles like a dream. The designers at Northwest Kayaks were not nearly as successful. Certainly the Sportee would have benefited had they attempted to copy the Coaster more directly. Dan Hagen *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Matt, Interesting photos. The Nadgee looks like a copy of the Mariner, but I sure love those hatches and deck lines on the Nadgee and would consider buying a Mariner if they were outfitted similarly. Of course, I know you have your valid reasons for the outfitting that you provide and greatly respect that you design and outfit your kayaks the way you think they should be rather than to increase sales. Duane Southern California Matt Broze <mkayaks_at_oz.net> wrote: For those who have followed this thread and would like to take a look at what the two kayaks look like here are three views of each (actually the vertical one is a Mariner XL but the distribution of buoyancy is nearly the same as the Max and compares best with the last picture of the Nadgee). http://www.marinerkayaks.com/images/MaxNadgeeCompare.htm <SNIP> *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Matt, those are very compelling photos. To my eye, the hullforms are the same. -- Dave Kruger Astoria, OR On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 01:22:42 -0700 "Matt Broze" <mkayaks_at_oz.net> wrote: > For those who have followed this thread and would like to take a look at > what the two kayaks look like here are three views of each [snip] *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Dave replied: >Matt, those are very compelling photos. To my eye, the hullforms are the same.< Yeah, just a little! Time to rest the case? Doug Lloyd Victoria BC ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ "Whatever can be said at all can be said clearly and whatever cannot be said clearly should not be said at all." Ludwig Wittgenstein ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Not so far fetched. If I take my Maas Aero rowing shell out in a regatta it must be (and is) equipped with a "bow ball". Of course, no open-water sculler would be caught dead or alive wearing a PFD or wetsuit or drysuit. Different strokes for different strokes, I guess. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "MICHAEL SILVIUS" <M.Silvius_at_worldnet.att.net> To: <mkayaks_at_oz.net>; "Paddlewise" <PaddleWise_at_paddlewise.net> Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 10:08 AM Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Nadgee, Max, Boat Copying / moving on > Matt wrote: snip > > from now on should have a large clown nose ball-shaped bow *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Correction: The Nadgee doesn't have as much T (as I had mis-remembered) at the stern. Rather the stern "vertical" flat area on the Max has been angled back some above the break in the rocker and therefore the Nadgee's stern comes to more of a point at the very stern (and adds a few inches to its length). Matt Broze 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/ ***************************************************************************
PeterT said (snip): > 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...the list can build. I have paddled a boat with a hatch in the deck right in front of the cockpit. The hatch box provides knee bracing. That seems worth developing.< The nicest arrangement I've seen yet is my very own front deck knee tube with recessed top hatch I custom moulded into my older Nordkapp. Not sure how easy it would be with the newer keyhole cockpits, which decrease deck surface area. Another fellow developed this idea about the same time that I did, I think his company is called Blazing Aspen or something like that (home built boats based on Inuit designs). I noticed another manufacturer now producing this idea. Check out the Eggemoggin at: http://www.canoesandkayaks.com/03-kayaks.html Hey Peter, I don't mind the ongoing discussion on Paddlewise with Matt, et al, just keep it civil and deep six the perceivable personal attacks/rebuttals/conga-line comments, etc. Doesn't matter if your right or wrong, or responding in kind. Sometimes you "win the case" by remaining a gentleman. Paddlewise isn't supposed to be a court room, nor an "all-Australian" bar-braw. Just my thoughts. Would love to meet some of you blokes down under some day, especially that Pittarak guy. BTW, I think the Nordkapp progression allegedly from the Anas Acuta has a new incarnation. Check out the Quarajaq: http://www.atlantickayaktours.com/Pages/Retail/Boats/VCP/Quarajaq.shtml Respectfully, Doug Lloyd (sometimes court jester) Victoria BC ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ "Whatever can be said at all can be said clearly and whatever cannot be said clearly should not be said at all." Ludwig Wittgenstein ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
In a message dated 8/11/2004 6:53:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time, dalloyd_at_telus.net writes: > The nicest arrangement I've seen yet is my very own front deck knee tube > with recessed top hatch I custom moulded into my older Nordkapp. Not sure > how easy it would be with the newer keyhole cockpits, which decrease deck > surface area. I solved my safe access to the knee tube issue by buying a Chillcheater aquatherm spray deck. http://www.chillcheater.com/products/shop.asp?cid=794&p=1&pid=1620 On the deck there is a drybag style rollup closure. It fits a hand pump without opening the whole deck to the cockpit.I had them custom fit it to my my dimensions without suspenders and it fits the keyhole cockpits of both of my sea boats. They will make one for any boat. You can have map loops added if you want. Mainly I like it because I can store lunch or snacks in my knee tube and access them easily. Final note, I have never had a drier boat than with this spray deck. I haven't had it long enough to make a recommendation one way or another but so far it is pretty sweet. Rob G Trying to remember the last time I was in a conga line *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Rob, I can not see any opening or other feature on the deck. Is what you are describing an after-market item they added? -- Dave Kruger Astoria, OR ----- Original Message ----- From: <Rcgibbert_at_aol.com> > I solved my safe access to the knee tube issue by buying a Chillcheater > aquatherm spray deck. > > http://www.chillcheater.com/products/shop.asp?cid=794&p=1&pid=1620 > > On the deck there is a drybag style rollup closure. It fits a hand pump > without opening the whole deck to the cockpit. *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Rob posted (snip): >I solved my safe access to the knee tube issue by buying a Chillcheater aquatherm spray deck.< Excellent products. BTW, I didn't mean to imply my deck hatch arrangement was the best "system" I've seen for accessing in-the-boat needs, just that the concept of a near-cockpit hatch was executed rather well in my retro-fit/rebuild as opposed to one being added as an afterthought. Doug Lloyd Victoria BC *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
In a message dated 8/11/2004 12:10:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time, kdruger_at_pacifier.com writes: > Rob, I can not see any opening or other feature on the deck. Is what you > are > describing an after-market item they added? > If you look at the decks/top decks page you will a stealth cag with the options I described. http://www.chillcheater.com/products/shop.asp?cid=794&p=2&pid=1659 Unfortunately, their paper catalog is much, much better than the imagery in the online catalog. I think the craftmanship of the product is excellent. Rob G *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Matt said (huge snip): >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...Robert's program is free and can be downloaded from the "Downloads" page on our website.< Yeah, I phoned Doug Alderson today to see how he lofted his current ply-kayak. He figured I needed a program; so, your post was good timing. I just have to make up my mind if I should go chine hull (don't think I'd go multi-chine, defeats the purpose) in ply, or conversely round-bilge in cedar strip. A play boat or a fast cruiser? That's how I sub-categorize things in my mind. I do think the Mariner kayak line has some good inspiration in them too that meet both above objectives in the same boat, but your boats don't have the "look" I'm looking for, nor the lower forebody I crave aesthetically - and practically for storm paddling. I better download that program before you and your brother retire (the Dynamic Duo of the PNW). Doug Lloyd Victoria BC ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ "Whatever can be said at all can be said clearly and whatever cannot be said clearly should not be said at all." Ludwig Wittgenstein ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
> From: "Peter Treby" <ptreby_at_ozemail.com.au> > At the end of that unwelcome cross examination of my friend, if there was > an end, you would not be satisfied that the Nadgee was not a copy of the Max, > and I would not be satisfied that it is. > But, I imagine you'd admit that the designer's perspective on this question carries a good deal more weight than someone else's. For example, I might tell a mother that I don't believe a child is hers, but her opinion rightly carries more weight. As someone who's at times devoted years (full time) to designing something (not kayaks), I can spot intimate details that wouldn't be at all obvious to a more casual observer. While there can be a gray line between something that was influenced by a design and an outright copy, the copies are often a good way over that line in practice. As an aside, I'm an owner of a Mariner Express, though not in any other way connected to Mariner. (It's a _great_ kayak, by the way. I'll certainly hate to see you retire, Matt). -- Phil *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Response to Matt Broze posting dated 18/8/2004. It appears from your last post that the problem between us is fundamental: you do not believe that anyone other than you can make a kayak of the same "family" or general boat shape as a Mariner. If you design something and put it into the marketplace, you have whatever legal protection is available. Beyond that, you can't really complain if similar articles derived from yours are made. You recognized earlier that there is no theft in a legal sense. Strictly speaking, theft only exists in a legal sense, and any careless accusation of theft when you mean copying, or similar design, is mistaken. John Winters set out a checklist of dimensions to check for copies. Do you agree with those? Do you agree that outside small, 1-2% tolerances for the building errors of a copy, the hull will not be a copy? You agree that the Nadgee not identical to the Max. It is longer and narrower than the Max, (outside the Winters tolerances) and its performance on your consistent and reliable tests is very different from the Max. You know that the deck, cockpit and fitout are entirely different from the Max. The fact that you believed 9 years ago that Max lines were being used, is relevant to whether your present outraged attitude seems justified or not. >From this side of the long crossing problem known as the Pacific Ocean, you allowed the impression, by making no objection, that there was no objection. When you say that there are many similar reports that reach your ears, this underscores what I am saying: once the genie is out of the bottle, he won't go back in. Once the idea is out that a working rudderless boat can be made with convex V bow sections, chines, and keel line at the stern half, why wouldn't you expect similar boats to come along? You mention that your boats are expensive and time consuming to get to Australia. This is a problem with Brit boats as well, and will probably make sure local boat makers have a market for a long time to come, unless Chinese imitations remove the labour component. A new Nordkapp (UK, not NZ) costs about $5,500 in Australia. A locally made Mirage 530 might be around $3,000. "You are right there was no law at the time to prevent this [i.e. to prevent your version of the Nadgee creation process]". The law is a little complex, of course. In Australia, a boat designer who wants legal protection should register under the Designs Act. If that isn't done, little chance to complain. If it is done, you must have the resources to defend your registered design against copiers. In practice, that has to be worthwhile commercially. Do you have a picture, website or contact details for the Svalbard kayak? "I know what changes were made. It is not an identical kayak. There is no debate from here about that. The point is he did not start the process from scratch but took our well proven design and made a few simple modifications and called it his own." Here again we have the essence of our disagreement. I don't find it offensive that every kayak is not designed from scratch. Kayak designers such as yourself might regard those without engineering or naval architecture backgrounds as lesser beings, but I don't. As a kayak user, the end product counts. If no illegality is involved, I am not the end recipient of a flawed process. "Where do you get that I heard this several times?" From you. A visit in 1996, an email from the visitor, an Australian competitor offering negative advertising. I am not going to go through the rest of your post and pick up the numerous other points with which I disagree. Would you object if I took the hydrostatic information published about a Mariner kayak, and designed a sea kayak which had similar (within 1%, say) hydrostatics, and the general look of a Mariner. In other words, is your objection to photocopied blow-up cross sections, or to anyone making a Mariner style boat? It sounds like the latter. Cheers, PT PS. Q. What's the difference between a sea kayaking lawyer with a good cause, and a pit bull terrier lunching on your leg? A. The pit-bull eventually lets go. *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
I don't know in what direction will the discussion end. What I do know is that Matt and his boat, and the others referenced have gotten a lot, and I mean, a lot of publicity. I guess the company doesn't mind that the discussion keeps going for ever. Best Regards, Rafael Mexico -----Mensaje original----- De: ] En nombre de Peter Treby Asunto: Re: [Paddlewise] Nadgee, Max, boat copying Response to Matt Broze posting dated 18/8/2004. *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
[Moderator's Note: Content unaltered. Excessive quoting (including headers/footers/sig lines/extraneous text from previous posts, etc.) have been removed. Please edit quoted material in addition to removing header/trailers when replying to posts.] Estoy de acuerdo, Rafael. I stopped reading all that stuff a while ago. It needs a different venue. Saludos, Jeff Veracruz, Mexico. [moderator followup - I disagree ;-) I've learned a fair bit about the laws with regard to boat design, and there have been several good spin off threads] *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Jeff Van Cott posted (snip): >I stopped reading all that stuff a while ago. It needs a different venue.< You must have read some of it to make that comment more recently. :-) List moderator said: >[moderator followup - I disagree ;-) I've learned a fair bit about the laws with regard to boat design, and there have been several good spin off threads]< I agree, as long as everyone stays civil. I doubt I'd have seriously considered making my own kayak without this thread coming up and going down some of the bunny trails it did. Making some European-bench style boat sawhorses this week out of 3X3 laminated pine, two full crossmembers, two uprights, all bolted together with 30" 3/8' threaded rod through the two vertical members on each stand. Feet are 2X6X30 pine with Honduras mahogany feet with adjustable levellers. Should be stable enough. Can't wait to see what boats get built on these stands! Doug Lloyd Victoria BC *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
In a message dated 8/24/2004 6:37:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time, dalloyd_at_telus.net writes: > Making some European-bench style boat sawhorses this week out of 3X3 > laminated pine, two full crossmembers, two uprights, all bolted together > with 30" 3/8' threaded rod through the two vertical members on each stand. > Feet are 2X6X30 pine with Honduras mahogany feet with adjustable levellers. > Should be stable enough. Can't wait to see what boats get built on these > stands! > You're faster than I am. I did, however, hire the naval architect firm of Baker, Baker and Brewer, to help me splash a design of a few hundred years age. I would have taken the lines off a Max, but I think the designer would get mad, and anyway, I live far too close to get away with it. Rob G *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
From: Rafael Mier-Maza <silidriel_at_prodigy.net.mx> wrote: >>>>>>I don't know in what direction will the discussion end. What I do know is that Matt and his boat, and the others referenced have gotten a lot, and I mean, a lot of publicity. I guess the company doesn't mind that the discussion keeps going for ever.<<<<<<< Peter Treby, sea kayaker & lawyer wrote: >>>>>PS. Q. What's the difference between a sea kayaking lawyer with a good cause, and a pit bull terrier lunching on your leg? A. The pit-bull eventually lets go.<<<<<<<< Raphael, I'd argue with "good cause", but otherwise I think that joke summarizes the problem. Maybe you could tempt Peter to bite into your kayak designs and you too could get a lot of free publicity for your designs. Actually, I would have liked to drop this whole discussion way back when Peter couldn't admit he was wrong about his method of determining a kayaks trim and kept hounding me with questions. Questions that I first took to be rather dense but then later realized were more like they were trying to weave a web of confusion and obfuscation. That's when I guessed "lawyer". Answering his questions and attacks has been a lot of work for me and I'd happily trade any publicity for the time I spent on this returned to me. I'm now going to take another wild guess that Peter is retired from the practice of law (at least temporarily), with maybe too much time on his hands now, and misses the kick of attacking arguments and trying to make a case that seems to miraculously float (out of a lead fill boat) that he got when actively practicing. Just a hunch. I agree this entire thread has gone on far too long but I have a problem letting distortions and twisted truths go unchallenged and I tend to try to answer questions put to me in enough detail to make my answers clear and understandable (apparently sometimes without success). It is very frustrating though, answering essentially the same questions over and over again in what seems like just an attempt to use the answers and the imprecision of language to split hairs. I think very few who have stuck with the discussion thus far (if any are left at all) don't see what is going on. I don't blame anybody for wanting this discussion to end, I do too. Any publicity I've garnered from this is unwanted and means nothing to me anyway as I'm planning on retiring soon. Warning to Paddlewiser's, if I can't find anything better to do with my time when I retire you might find yourselves even more inundated by postings from me than you already are. Once again with his last post to me, Peter has twisted reality many times. While I'm tempted to point out all the things he has implied that aren't true line by line I'm only going to restrain myself and answer only his main question. >>>>>>>>Would you object if I took the hydrostatic information published about a Mariner kayak, and designed a sea kayak which had similar (within 1%, say) hydrostatics, and the general look of a Mariner. In other words, is your objection to photocopied blow-up cross sections, or to anyone making a Mariner style boat? It sounds like the latter.<<<<<< Wrong again, I have no problem with somebody designing a kayak that has features similar to those on our kayaks as long as they don't use my work without my permission to cut corners and then make a profit from it (that I don't share in). I'd be a lot more pissed though if I had to then compete directly with my own design. Vastly different kayak designs could have exactly the same basic hydrostatics. My objection is to my work (hull, offsets, cross sections or plans) being used directly (or scaled--thank you John for that one precise word description) without compensation (or even any credit) given, as was the case here. While the law was different when the Max was designed that has now been at least partially corrected (but is, unfortunately, not retroactive). So what may not legally have been "theft" back then would now be considered to be an offense against a designer who registered his designs since the new law was passed. I was willing to let this go since it was happening in Australia (as long as the kayaks didn't start showing up in my major market areas). What got my back up was Peter trying to distort the record and make it appear like what I knew had happened didn't really happen. If the Nadgee builder gets any negative fallout from this he can thank Peter for goading me into responding to his questions (or himself if he intentionally misled Peter about the origins of the Nadgee design when asked). Matt Broze 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/ ***************************************************************************
Matt Broze wrote: > > > Wrong again, I have no problem with somebody designing a kayak that has > features similar to those on our kayaks as long as they don't use my work > without my permission to cut corners and then make a profit from it (that I > don't share in). I'd be a lot more pissed though if I had to then compete > directly with my own design. Vastly different kayak designs could have > exactly the same basic hydrostatics. My objection is to my work (hull, > offsets, cross sections or plans) being used directly (or scaled--thank you > John for that one precise word description) without compensation (or even > any credit) given, as was the case here. I will give a summary of my understanding of the law, morality and Matt's position. If I start from his lines drawings or table of offsets then I am copying and am in the wrong. I happen to agree with this. Now, if I start from a clean sheet of paper (or blank CAD screen) and draw my own set of lines, fair the lines do the calculations and make adjustments until I come up with a workable design, I am OK. Much of what goes into my design will come from things that have been done by other designers especially when I have paddled their boats and found things that I liked. This is true of every designer, nobody starts from zero. Now if I wanted to make a boat that was very close to the Max, I would probably first try to work out a licensing arrangement with Matt first as it would be faster, probably produce better results, and would likely be cheaper than my spending lots of time doing my own. Many times it is better to spend a little money on a good designer. Not only do you get the benefit of their training and experience but also the value of their reputation when it comes time to sell the boat. michael (still more of a sailor than kayaker) *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
G'Day, I've noticed an exponential decay in the rate at which words are being generated on this topic. Average number of characters per word is seven. My best estimate is that we will be down to two characters per month by 2020. But what will those characters be? All the best, PeterO Your thoroughly reliable statistican :~) *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
> Average number of characters per word is seven. My best estimate > is that we will be down to two characters per month by 2020. > > But what will those characters be? > "is too!" "is not!" "is too!" "is not!" ad nauseum Too bad PW doesn't have an electronic polling feature, as do some other message boards. If there was, Paddlerwisers could vote on whether the Nadgee was or was not a copy of the Max, and serve as the jury for this seemingly endless back-and-forth, which essentially consists of the phrases above. Jeez, I hope there's no appeal process ;-) *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
> Too bad PW doesn't have an electronic polling feature, as do > some other message boards. If there was, Paddlerwisers could > vote on whether the Nadgee was or was not a copy of the Max, > and serve as the jury for this seemingly endless > back-and-forth, which essentially consists of the phrases > above. Jeez, I hope there's no appeal process ;-) Well my vote is that it IS a COPY and I vote to award Matt treble damages of three times the normal profit he earns on the Max for every Nadgee sold. However, like most small claims lawsuits - he'll have a hell of a time collecting. Steve Holtzman *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Though I am a very satisfied owner of two Mariner kayaks (hopefully two more in the future), I'm afraid I would vote that it is NOT an inappropriate copy, but an evolution of an excellent design feature. In spite of Mariner Kayaks opinions about hatches and bulkheads, most would agree that adding them is a significant design improvement. If the hull design was protected by a patent, copyright, or other law of ownership, then my vote would change. Steve Brown -----Original Message----- ....... Well my vote is that it IS a COPY and I vote to award Matt treble damages of three times the normal profit he earns on the Max for every Nadgee sold. However, like most small claims lawsuits - he'll have a hell of a time collecting. Steve Holtzman ..... *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
In a message dated 8/26/2004 6:17:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time, sprenne_at_netnitco.net writes: > Too bad PW doesn't have an electronic polling feature, as do some other > message boards. If there was, Paddlerwisers could vote on whether the > Nadgee was or was not a copy of the Max, and serve as the jury for this > seemingly endless back-and-forth, which essentially consists of the > phrases above. Jeez, I hope there's no appeal process ;-) > It's a fake Rolex. I don't award anything but the original designer the satisfaction of being imitated. Rob G *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:38 PDT