Sydney-Hobart 2016

[Doug Lord]

DSS / Wild Oats XI

The "high dudgeon" may come from the fact that some of us don't like posters claiming, in effect, that Richo and the other Wild Oats people are professionally incompetent and may be thieves. The WOXI team are people like you and I. For someone to allege them of possible theft of intellectual property, when they have no evidence whatsoever to base any such allegation, is not the sort of thing that should be common on any forum. If any poster is going to allege other people of possible theft then they can hardly complain when much milder allegations are thrown back at them. The allegations that the WOXI team are "incredibly nuts" and can't install a DSS system properly aren't much better.

I have to admit, I don't understand the concept that saying that someone may be a thief is OK as long as it's done on the internet. It's not the thinking where WOXI and the team live. To you these guys may just be images on the internet, but in reality they are people who should not be grossly insulted.

There's also the issue that we're not going to learn much if the default reaction of such news is for people who have never sailed a boat remotely like WOXI on a race remotely like the Hobart to accuse the designers of being "incredibly nuts". Surely the best reaction is to watch and wait.

====================
I made no such allegation*-that is simply false. I raised a question about an obvious fallacy in the statement made about removing DSS**. I never accused anybody of anything unless in fact they did use Welbourns technology without a license.I specifically said that I had no evidence that they did not have a license and I said I would try to find out the facts. I feel it was incredibly nuts to remove DSS for the reasons given and wonder IF there could have been another reason. As you have done many times before you attempt to change the meaning of what I said to suit your agenda by misrepresenting my comments.
---
* See post 13 in response to "oz fred"
** I have studied DSS for years including many conversations with the inventor. I have a right to express my opinion in response to comments about DSS that raise a red flag.

 

[CT249]

Use all the red font you want. It doesn't change the fact that from post #6 you were claiming that the WOXI team were either dishonest, incompetent or both. That post provides for only two alternatives - one, they are "nuts" for removing the foil; two, that they tried to "rip off" the DSS idea and "screwed up". You didn't even allow for the alternative that the WOXI team provide (which is that the new hull shape doesn't need a foil of any such type) to be correct, or that there could have been some other reason to remove it. You - not Fred - introduced the idea that there could have been a theft of IP. He didn't raise the possibility of a "rip off" - you did.

Yes, I saw post 13. That just goes further into the mire. For you to claim that "using a foil that looks like a DSS foil and works like a DSS foil but refusing to acknowledge that it is a DSS foil is unfortunate, just plain wrong and completely unprofessional" is once again throwing insults at the WOXI team. You are not an IP professional and I think it's safe to say that you have not obtained an opinion about the relevant terms of any contract between Hugh and the WOXI team. You don't know if (for instance) there could have been a binding legal agreement that would allow WOXI to develop a similar foil and not use the DSS term. Of course the WOXI team are gentlemen (in my experience) so they won't do anything about your insults.

You have a right to express your opinions about DSS. Other people have the right to point out that the value people give to your opinion can be affected by the fact that you have never sailed a boat remotely like WOXI, in a race like the Hobart, or in any boat with DSS. When we look at the actions and opinions of world class sailors in types of boat that you have never sailed it would be nice if you would respect the fact that they know an enormous amount more than you do about such craft, rather than simply saying they are wrong.

 

[Doug Lord]

Wild Oats/ DSS

I stand by what I have previously written and add the following:

Use all the red font you want. It doesn't change the fact that from post #6 you were claiming that the WOXI team were either dishonest, incompetent or both. That post provides for only two alternatives - one, they are "nuts" for removing the foil; two, that they tried to "rip off" the DSS idea and "screwed up". You didn't even allow for the alternative that the WOXI team provide (which is that the new hull shape doesn't need a foil of any such type) to be correct, or that there could have been some other reason to remove it. You - not Fred - introduced the idea that there could have been a theft of IP. He didn't raise the possibility of a "rip off" - you did.FALSE! I raised a legitimate question based on the previous post by ozfred and based on the rationale given for removing what was obviously a DSS foil. ozfred said that Wild Oats didn't consider the foil a DSS foil effectively condoning the idea of using someone elses intellectual property without permission,ie a rip-off.

Yes, I saw post 13. That just goes further into the mire. For you to claim that "using a foil that looks like a DSS foil and works like a DSS foil but refusing to acknowledge that it is a DSS foil is unfortunate, just plain wrong and completely unprofessional" is once again throwing insults at the WOXI team. You are not an IP professional and I think it's safe to say that you have not obtained an opinion about the relevant terms of any contract between Hugh and the WOXI team. You don't know if (for instance) there could have been a binding legal agreement that would allow WOXI to develop a similar foil and not use the DSS term. Of course the WOXI team are gentlemen (in my experience) so they won't do anything about your insults. Again, I raised a legitimate question and comment qualified by IF. It is a comment and question that I stand by 100% and was not an insult unless they used a DSS foil without permission. I said I had no evidence they did and that I would try to find the facts.You use innuendo and outright falsehood(by omission) to change the meaning of what I wrote.

You have a right to express your opinions about DSS. Other people have the right to point out that the value people give to your opinion can be affected by the fact that you have never sailed a boat remotely like WOXI, in a race like the Hobart, or in any boat with DSS. When we look at the actions and opinions of world class sailors in types of boat that you have never sailed it would be nice if you would respect the fact that they know an enormous amount more than you do about such craft, rather than simply saying they are wrong.I have absolutely no respect for anyone that would deliberately use anothers intellectual property without permission or condone such use .

 

[CT249]

Isn't the foil in question the one described as a DSS foil here http://www.thedailysail.com/offshore/14/67419/0/bigger-dss-foil-for-wild-oats-xi but in one other article described in other terms?

 

[Doug Lord]

Wild Oats/DSS

Thats a great article-I've never seen it since I canceled my Daily Sail sub before then. I don't know what other article you're referring to. It seems like I've read several articles about "the wing" where DSS was not referred to but it sure was in this one so I'm sure that answers the question about a licence.
Thanks for the link.
------------
Reading that stuff again increases my wonder at the rationale given for removing the foil. I look forward to finding out what the story behind the story is.

 

[OzFred]

Here is your original statement:

============================

If they used DSS without Hugh's permission then they stole his intellectual property. Based on what you say above it sounds like that was the case and ,further, that they may have screwed up the installation so badly they had to remove it. I'll be real interested what Hugh says about it. I'll get the actual facts.

You can't use weasel words to evade your inference. Your statement:

"If they used DSS without Hugh's permission…it sounds like that was the case"​

Is utterly wrong as not only was that not what was said, they have publicly acknowledged that they used DSS technology under licence. There was no logical way for you to come to that conclusion. So the only way to interpret your statement is a very thinly disguised slur that you still have not retracted. You know, a statement like "It's now clear to me that they used the technology under licence and are not the IP thieves I thought they might have been".

Further, your inference that you know more about Wild Oats than the guys who have been working on it for a decade to keep it at the front of a very, very competitive fleet is a sign of your self righteous arrogance.

Again your weasel words:

"…further, that they may have screwed up the installation so badly they had to remove it"​

You had the gall to say that despite the boat winning the Sydney to Hobart with both the original and modified (apparently "screwed up") foils. Apparently the actual on–water success of the boat is irrelevant to your analysis that determined your (obviously ill–informed) opinion about one aspect of the boat's equipment.

It's those kinds of incredibly misinformed statements that mark you as someone whose opinions can't be respected.

In regard to the use of "DSS", the fact that a particular technology has been licenced to create a product does not necessarily mean the product must be named after the technology, or even that use of the technology needs to be acknowledged. Whether or not the foil needed to be called "DSS" may or may not have been covered by the licence agreement. The fact that they called the first foil DSS, but not the second, might provide some insight, or not.

Lastly, here's what Hugh Welbourn had to say of the first foil:

"Wild Oats XI’s retro-fitted foil can be considered a ‘DSS-lite’, and therefore only achieves a relatively small percentage increase in performance compared to what would be expected with from an Infiniti yacht where the DSS foil is integral to the original design".
​

Yachtzoo 30/12/2013

So it's pretty clear that the original foil on the unmodified boat had only a modest improvement in performance. Apparently the boat didn't know how nobbled it was and won the Sydney to Hobart that year anyway. And again the next with the modified foil.

 

[Doug Lord]

Wild Oats/ DSS

You either haven't read or don't understand whats been written in this thread. You obviously missed CT's last link. Give it up.

 

[OzFred]

That's likely as close to "I was wrong" as anyone will ever get from you. The author is Rob Mundle, not anyone representing Wild Oats so the use of "DSS" is his, not from Wild Oats and predates the article linked below. Nothing there supports your case.

It also makes clear that the redesign was not by DSS (the company). Perhaps you forgot about this post where you were given a link to article where the "DSS" tag is directly refuted:

"The third refinement was the addition of a lateral foil (not a DSS, they say)."​

Yachting World 24 April, 2015

And it again refutes your "…they may have screwed up the installation so badly they had to remove it…" rubbish. Presumably you've also given up on the IP theft theme too.

 

[CT249]

OzFred seems to have hit the nail pretty well. The post I linked to confirms that the WOXI team did give credit to DSS for the first foil. As OzFred says, there could well have been an agreement about the use of the term for the second foil. In fact the use of the term "DSS Lite" by Hugh could have been his own way of saying that the retrofitted foil couldn't work as well as DSS would work on a boat designed for it, as he says. In that case Hugh could have been very happy not to have the DSS term used further.

Whatever could have gone on, there are two simple and undeniable facts. One, there are clearly ways that the WOXI team could have fitted foils without calling them DSS and without breaking any agreement, law or even any unspoken understanding. For anyone to jump to an assumption that they may have broken an agreement or been dishonest in any way, when there was not the slightest real evidence for that, is insulting and silly. Even the use of terms like "if" doesn't get around the fact that there was no evidence at all that could properly support the allegations.

Secondly, surely the people who have never sailed a maxi, never sailed a DSS boat, never done anything like a Hobart and never won national-level events would do better to learn from what the WOXI team are doing, rather than just saying they got it wrong.

 

[Doug Lord]

Sydney-Hobart--DSS equipped Super Maxi CQS

CQS- that straight DSS foil just doesn't seem right. Beautiful boat ,though:

 

[Doug Lord]

Sydney-Hobart--DSS equipped Super Maxi CQS

More DSS pictures: http://www.sail-world.com/australia/Dockside-with-CGS---radical,-revamped-supermaxi-up-close/149832

 

[Doug Lord]

Sydney-Hobart--DSS equipped Super Maxi CQS

Richard Gladwell pictures:

 

[Doug Lord]

"Foiling" Nonsense

I wouldn't have believed it but Richard Gladwell has joined the ranks of those who just have to call non-foiling boats "foilers". He just said CQS was a "Foiling Super Maxi" ! What absurd nonsense.
He probably also calls the IMOCA 60 Vendee boats "foilers".....

http://www.sail-world.com/USA/Foiling-Supermaxi-CQS-starts-Sydney-Hobart-Qualifier/149902

 

[Doug Lord]

CQS wins her first race

She didn't use DSS in this race but won anyway.

http://rayc.co.nz/whiteisland/

 

[IOR]

Would that crazy boat survive more than 8 Beaufort upwind ?
KIALOA III did. Hope for a heavy southerly gale this year...