Comments for V10 Rip-off? at http://www.surfski.info , comment 0 to 20 out of 24 comments http://www.surfski.info Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:43:04 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.2 http://www.surfski.info/content/view/304/147/#pc_3102 Just a historical correction regarding “the first ski to be machined by CNC”. You say in the intro to this piece that Epic were the first to do this. Not so! I made two surfski models, designed on a computer, performance evaluated with software and CNC machined mould plugs, this was back in 1999. These were the Tomohawk and the Scout Ski’s (I don’t claim that this was the first either, somebody may have beaten me to it?) but it was long before Epic made any ski’s. For me it was a part time hobby, the exercise was funded by Des Carr, the moulding and glass work was done by Colin Bell in Cape Town under the Cape Town Kayaks name. They were not a commercial success due to a myriad of other problems that are not relevant to this discussion. I had been hand making ski’s since the 70’s and was asked by Des to design him a fast but stable ski and a very stable ski for beginners. We discussed methods and I proposed trying this method, he was game. I designed the hulls in Prolines and ran them through the Michlet fluid flow analysis, also using its partner package Godzilla for tweaking the hulls drag coefficient. I then created the seats and final shape with the Rhino 3d design package. I then got a Cape Town 3D machining wiz to produce my tool path plan with Solid edge. I designed the cutting tool and had it made. We then machined the plug from high density polyurethane foam in lengths of approximately 1.2m long with locator teeth to ensure 100% accurate linking on assembly (done on a Cinch 25 CNC mill in "off time" to make it cheap). With the first plug (the Tomohawk) a few errors crept in which spoilt its performance in the end but with the second model we got it 100% bang on and perfected the system. We had plans to continue the range and keep on updating the designs, but in those days the market was very small and both Des and I were busy with our real careers and the previously mentioned problems crept in and forced the closure of the factory. Surprisingly it was not extremely expensive! I still have videos, photos and the records of the entire process, it was a great learning exercise and great fun. I showed these two models to Oscar in 2001 in the UK (after the world canoeing championships) and explained my development method to him, at his request I sent emails with photos and descriptions of the system I’d used, to Greg Barton, he was very interested and said they were developing their own designs. The history of the surfski's development is an intesting subject with very many contributers, what many maybe dont realise, is that in the "old days" we mostly made our own ski's, copied good ideas and developed new ones for each PE-EL. The little known "father" of all the current skis was the "Challenge Craft Ski" made in small numbers by Rob Welsh and Anton Erasmus - 6.5 m long, unitary footwell, venturi bailer - and that was decades ago! - Tom Mason Sun, 23 Nov 2008 23:44:19 +0100 http://www.surfski.info/content/view/304/147/#pc_1037 You get waht you pay for. I used to race slalom kayaks in the 1980's. It was the same product protection issue there, only worse. It had been the standard for many years and probaly still is. The biggest form of flattery was when the other team would buy the winner's boats at the worlds, take them back to where ever and start pulling copies. I work in the design field - I see it all the time. Where ever they are, the good manufacturers with the long view take a close look at the competition's products and then try to improve on them. other's just copy what seems to work. for example, Joe Sedavic Designed the first low volume slalom K1, called the Equipe in the mid seventies and it won the worlds. 6 months later everyone was training in warmed over Equipes. How many flat water designs are there that look like the Cleaver? I don't know who penned it, but it influenced designs for 15 years. It was a pretty good boat - so people copied it. It took a lot of head scratching to get beyond it. It's the same with any sport, and very little enforcement of intellectual property rights in sports that do not have the big dollars at stake. Technically, if you change a few things on a Mako 6, it is something different, but if it still fits in the mould of the parent boat, well, it's pretty obvious where it came from. It's great you raised the issue and we need to keep looking at it. innovators behind innovative boats like the S1a and the V10 (to pick 2) need to be recognized for the contributions they make to the paddling world. they are the making the big steps. It is natural that people will look at the winning boats and initially try to copy them until a new way to improve is found. it's what pushes the sport forward. Folks who are selling blatent copies often have taken a few other shortcuts in construction too. And while they are spending time making the copies the innovators are moving onto the next big thing. Like I said, you get what you pay for. - John Dye Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:25:06 +0100 http://www.surfski.info/content/view/304/147/#pc_571 A copy is an exact replicate. If it has innovations and has been improved or altered, then its no longer a copy. Innovation should be encouraged so we always get the best product. Example is the venturi drain with the bulb by Red7. Its now up to buyers to judge it has been an innovation or just an altered copy to benefit from another designer's original idea. I use an original Brasca II paddle. This design has obviously been copied and innovated on. Even the adjustable shaft originally designed and used by Braca Sports has been innovated on. The case of Advantage is different. It seems to be an exact copy. What can epic do now? Is there a governing body to protect their property? - Mark Bata Sat, 21 Apr 2007 04:42:28 +0100 http://www.surfski.info/content/view/304/147/#pc_477 Welcome to the Global Economy! As long as new designs are produced they will be under price/performance pressure from copies. The Japanese became hugely successful at this. So what can the original manufacturer do? Well, keep prices as low as possible at the retail end and this will hopefully make it economically unviable to copy the product. Why do items that are so cheap to produce have such a large retail price? Because of greed! Keep the prices low and there is no advantage to buying a copy. - AussieGazza Tue, 05 Dec 2006 05:06:18 +0100 http://www.surfski.info/content/view/304/147/#pc_461 Around 3 maybe 4 years ago a ski was sent to the USA from Cape Town for evaluation (May have been to Patrick Hemmens) To the local manufacturers surprise (Johan Loots) it was reported that the ski was already available in the USA. There was great consternation at the time regarding rip offs or copying and how it could have happened. Once the dust settled it seems that two people on either side of the Atlantic had sat down at their computers and using the latest, newly available naval architect design program (Read same CAD package) entered the same design criteria into the required boxes such as, paddlers average weight, overall ski length, width, seat distance from bow and other variables, closely enough so that very similar ski?s popped out when the enter button was pushed. Now I?m not sure of the exact ski model names but I think it was the HukiS1XA? To the West and to the East it was the PY Hurricane later renamed the PY Adjustor? I?m not suggesting this is the case in the ?Charger? issue but it can, and has happened in many design fields and will happen more often as ?out of house? programs are used rather than the grizzly ?Waterman? from your local beach. - Mako Sat, 18 Nov 2006 08:07:37 +0100 http://www.surfski.info/content/view/304/147/#pc_458 In a nutshell, your work and business ethic will dictate what kind of operator you are. The Charger V10 copy has had a portion of the top deck changed slightly and hints at the re-engineering angle of copying a ski, making a slight change and then marketing it. I phoned the business to enquire about the ski price and was told they are not taking any (more?)orders for the charger. The comments at Advantage Kayaks hint at them being a bit embarassed about this commotion and attention. If the ski was a new bona fide design I would think they would be only too happy to volunteer information about it....and take orders. - Martin Tue, 14 Nov 2006 03:00:42 +0100 http://www.surfski.info/content/view/304/147/#pc_457 If somebody has an idea he/she can patent that idea by proof of certified drawings or a working model. i.e. Because a legend eastern cape paddler did not patent his single footwell system he can not lay claim to it. Therefore Epic-Red7 and FennK can all use the single system without punishment. If Epic-Red7 and FennK have not patented their ski designs both locally and internationally, in a way what charger is doing is not against the law.(The same for Surf Lifesaving skis, European paddles etc.)I stand to correction, local patents cost around R10k without drawings and extras. Int. cost around $200k with hidden extras. Somebody must phone the following law firm to get the total low down. After that the article must be withdrawn. http://www.bowman.co.za/ - wildrich Mon, 13 Nov 2006 19:57:03 +0100 http://www.surfski.info/content/view/304/147/#pc_456 It is a little sad the way this discussion has degenerated. The article made a simple point that rip-off products are bad for the sport and should be discouraged (whether it be in South Africa, Australia or anywhere else). There are some good counter arguments such as the fact that copying is already widespread and forces manufacturers to ensure that their products remain competitive in terms of price, quality and service. What a pity petty nationalistic sentiments have clouded the issue. - Dale Mon, 13 Nov 2006 13:10:46 +0100 http://www.surfski.info/content/view/304/147/#pc_455 If you had said \"I\'ve canceled my order for the copied Lettmann and Bratcha 4 to buy GENUINE EUROPEAN ones\" I\'d have said \"great!\". But your saying that you\'re going to buy Australian copies instead means our article has not had the impact we were hoping for - that ALL copying is bad. It also means that you seem to have a grudge against us as South Africans which completely misses the point. I guess we can\'t please everyone! - robin.mousley Mon, 13 Nov 2006 11:04:01 +0100 http://www.surfski.info/content/view/304/147/#pc_454 Just letting you know i have canceled my order for Letthemann paddle also the Bratcha 4 both made in SA Both blatant coppies, I will now be ordering an Aussie copy of both see ya - Trimbols Mon, 13 Nov 2006 10:40:00 +0100 http://www.surfski.info/content/view/304/147/#pc_453 This debate seems in danger of becoming a hate-fest between Oz & SA. Let\'s keep that for the rugby field :-) But all the comments we\'ve had, flaming or not, have had a common theme. Everyone agrees that copying is bad. AlanC made a great suggestion - instead of trying to identify manufacturers who have copied other\'s designs (which is difficult and gets everyone\'s blood boiling), can we rather identify those manufacturers who have put time and effort and money into original designs? We have stories on the site about Red7 & Epic, both of whom have broken new ground in terms of R&D. This might encourage manufacturers to become "certified" as non-copiers. Then paddlers can make up their own minds where to buy their equipment... What do you think? - robin.mousley Sun, 12 Nov 2006 19:23:33 +0100 http://www.surfski.info/content/view/304/147/#pc_452 I'm glad you agree that knocking off designs is bad. And that\'s the point of the article. It just happened that a company in Australia was the one to make what appears to be a blatant copy. It\'s not a SA v Aussie thing. If South African manufacturers are making copies of Australian skis then jeez, let\'s highlight that. COPYING IS BAD FOR THE SPORT. And it can be done honestly - e.g. Brian\'s Kayaks making the Molokai under license. SA Hypocrisy? I wrote the article and I don\'t feel like a hypocrite! I think the article highlights a problem that *should* be brought under the spotlight, especially now that ski design is no longer a one man in a garage hand-shaping exercise but requires big bucks to finance. - robin.mousley Sun, 12 Nov 2006 18:58:47 +0100 http://www.surfski.info/content/view/304/147/#pc_451 GUYS LETS BE HONEST WITH OURSELVES HERE IN SA HOW MANY AUSSIE SURF SKI,S HAVE WE COPIED FROM BURTON,S TO HAYDENS TO SPECTRIM,S.WE ARE THE WORST AND NOW THAT IT HAS HAPPENED TO ONE OF OUR DESIGNS WE ARE ALL UP IN ARMS.WHILST NOT AGREEING WITH KNOCKING OFF DESIGNS WE MUST ALL REMEMBER THE GREATEST COMPLIMENT A MANUFACTUERE CAN BE PAYED IS TO HAVE HIS DESIGNED KNOCKED OFF. - PARKSY Sun, 12 Nov 2006 13:13:07 +0100 http://www.surfski.info/content/view/304/147/#pc_450 I am a strong supporter of intellectual property right and as far as I am concerned, the people who put in all the effort to design, test, re-design and re-test products are a huge resource to the paddling community. They are also the ones taking the big risks financial and otherwise with any new product or idea. The issue of hull piracy has been around for a long time in flatwater, and outrigger and sea kayaks, and... Every time a new hull appears that has an advantage of some sort over its competition it becomes a target for imitations. The same for paddles. As a paddle sports coach, I see many training programs and coaching tools exploited the same way. Sadly, this appears to be the accepted standard to many participants in paddle sports. Maybe those in the community who are concerned need to set up an anti-piracy movement and recognize / identify suppliers who have originals and / or licences. I won\'t offer more than the idea... Alan - AlanC Sun, 12 Nov 2006 03:15:53 +0100 http://www.surfski.info/content/view/304/147/#pc_449 Why don\'t you run a story on South African copies of Australian Spec ski designs !I have seen Hayden,Gibbons and Spectrum copies here in OZ how many more exist?? How many SA paddlers can say they never owned one Latman - latman Sun, 12 Nov 2006 02:15:58 +0100 http://www.surfski.info/content/view/304/147/#pc_448 I have removed two comments that added no value to the discussion. Please keep to the topic and keep politics out of it. :sigh Alain. - Alain Jaques Sat, 11 Nov 2006 18:02:41 +0100 http://www.surfski.info/content/view/304/147/#pc_447 >> if you supplied enough We had the same issue in South Africa with the V10 - when they moved production to China, there was no stock to be had here. So what happened? A local manufacturer started making them UNDER LICENSE. Instead of stealing the design - because that\'s what it is: theft - why not manufacture them under license? Or better yet design your own. Australia has the most surf ski paddlers in the world after South Africa (and some of the best) - you can\'t say there\'s no market. But this is a GLOBAL ISSUE, not South Africa v Australia (look mate - the bloody V10 isn\'t a South African design, it\'s American - with input from a South African). Copying is BAD for the sport. Help stop it. - robin.mousley Sat, 11 Nov 2006 13:13:40 +0100 http://www.surfski.info/content/view/304/147/#pc_446 Blah blah blah what a pack of hypocrictical whingers you are ,if you supplied enough skis to the Australian market , this situation would not have occoured , for too many years Aussie paddlers have paid too much for poor quality skis from SA ,all i can say is too bad boys ,you played us for fools ,I can see why you think the charger is a copy however the quality of finnish and construction sets it apart (some times you have to look inside ),and by the way its made in Australia , with the full support of a local manufacturer,interesting how they can be produced localy for less than the imported product, must be the lack of middle men taking a cut along the way , i hope there are three more producers doing the same keeping jobs and money in our country . - Trimbols Sat, 11 Nov 2006 09:08:03 +0100 http://www.surfski.info/content/view/304/147/#pc_445 I think you\'ll always get imitation of some features like the auto-adjusting rudder lines and I don\'t have an issue with that. (Of course something innovative like that can be protected with a patent.) I do have an issue with taking a blatant copy of the whole hull - which gives the ski its performance. And with the \"charger\" it appears, from the identical shapes of bow, forward deck, after deck, etc to be an obvious copy where the guy has literally taken a mould off a V10. I think a good start would be to prevent obvious copies. This one looks like an obvious copy. How to prevent it? Don\'t buy the product; let everyone else know that it\'s a copy and encourage them not to buy it. - robin.mousley Thu, 09 Nov 2006 17:12:52 +0100 http://www.surfski.info/content/view/304/147/#pc_444 The ski that is paddled by 90% of surfski paddlers around the globe is a slight re-adjustment of a ski that was shaped nearly 15 years ago! Every manufacturer looks at what their competitors are doing. i.e. Red 7 came out with the single footwell now fenn & epic have it. The question should rather be what constitutes a copied design? If the boat is 20,30 or 40% altered from its original mould it can\'t be called a copy? Anyway these are big boys and they must resolve their problems accordingly. Imitation is the highest form of....,you know the rest. Peace out. See ya on the big blue - wildrich Thu, 09 Nov 2006 13:35:53 +0100