Search results

  1. W

    Who got it Right? Rating vs. Design

    DSS : trying to protect same reminds me of the Wright Bros trying to protect their patent claim on "flying machines" in various parts of the world.
  2. W

    Who got it Right? Rating vs. Design

    Hugh : what is different with WO appendage often referred to in this thread as a DSS that denies it being a DSS application and therefore not infringing your patent ? .... Asking in very general terms.
  3. W

    Who got it Right? Rating vs. Design

    Francis : read your post above. In my understanding of patent law within IP, I have great difficulty / reservations (with all that has gone on with Retractable Appendage devices in the realm of fluid dynamics) that Hugh's patent would survive the test of a challenge.
  4. W

    Who got it Right? Rating vs. Design

    Doug : "solid and defensible" on your assurance !!! Can Hugh quote you on that ?
  5. W

    Who got it Right? Rating vs. Design

    Doug : the DSS appendage I think would fail if challenged as to the test of "new or novel". I know of other designers / naval architects that have tested similar concepts more than 3 decades before the DSS was put forward as being the subject to current IP.
  6. W

    Sydney to Hobart 2014

    East Coast Hustle : C is clearly not an all rounder, in short distance racing she will always be at the mercy of WO. C has demonstrated she "parks up" in waves / light - moderate air - issues that are the result of a much greater water-plane / wetted surface by comparison to WO. For WO more...
  7. W

    Sydney to Hobart 2014

    : there was an obvious speed advantage to Comanche out of the blocks to the first mark, maybe the DSS factor is not the answer : maybe the answer is reduce wave making resistance by increasing Cp even carrying more heel angle - probably will rate lower than deploying the DSS appendage.
  8. W

    Sydney to Hobart 2014

    The next super maxis will (should) be narrower than WO, 4000+ kg heavier than WO, longitudinal Cp .62+ (depending on stern immersion), 15%+ Sail area up on WO. The Fast IACC boats were all heavier and (way) narrower than their "fat"predecessors, and heeled more. The downwind speed deficiency...
  9. W

    Cadilac

    How was the comparison to Team Saab (Foundation 36) ?
  10. W

    Lasers - Applying a Blow Torch

    Wess : How can a Laser be non Kirby ?
  11. W

    Poll: Should I build Generic "lasers"

    Ed Unless I am incredibly dense, what goals of yours are remotely similar with what Gov' is promoting via the use of the Laser design ?
  12. W

    Poll: Should I build Generic "lasers"

    Gov' I don't think the Laser has left BKs control - if I understand you correctly ? I'm sure refurbishing to what ever level is of no issue to anyone.
  13. W

    Poll: Should I build Generic "lasers"

    Gov' would you obtain Kirby's consent to build your proposed "Laser" ?
  14. W

    Lasers - Applying a Blow Torch

    IPlore : as you write, why is there no copyright in the construction manual ?
  15. W

    what is it?

    Dutch effort at going retro- contemporary
  16. W

    How to Take Charge of the America's Cup by Jack Griffin

    Where is Protocol Article 16.1 ??? dealt with in the Deed of Gift ? Maybe I am incredibly dense but I think the GGYC is now in a position to be forced to accept a Challenge when one is served upon them...... and Proof of Service will most likely need to be Deed Compliant and Legally...
  17. W

    1988 M Fay Challenge

    With HI gone, how long (minutes) untill a 1988 NZ Challenge is issued, or was next Challenge puppet decided before HI pulled the pin.
  18. W

    rs aero

    Does fleet sailing make a boat commercially successful ?
  19. W

    Hamilton Island Challenge ~ Validity

    After watching the interview with Mr Oatley and son it is revealed that negotiation is well underway that contradicts the GGYC confirmation of Challenge : clearly the Defender is working in concert with HIYC with a Defender control on potential Challengers (multiple) as outlined in GGYC...




Top