CBTF(Canting Ballast Twin Foil)

Cbtf

Falcon, CBTFco believes 100% that Maximus has infringed their patent! These guys have worked for years to refine this system and it was just a matter of time before a case like thi came up. If CBTF believesthat Maximus is infringing they have an OBLIGATION to themselves and under the law to do whatever is required to defend the patent.
The patent system works in such a way that if someone did come up with a better system than CBTF they could file a patent and reference the CBTFpatent(s) as prior art.
Maximus has not done this; probably because the claims they might make are all ready covered by the CBTF patent!
One word of caution in trying to unravel this: it is probably impossible for a layperson to accurately judge the details of the CBTF patent as compared to the Maximus system or any other system. There are really important nuances to patent law that require a patent lawyer to properly evaluate.People can and will speculate from now till hell freezes over but it's probably going to be the lawyers that settle this one.
Also, depending on whether or not CBTFco filed in foreign countries jurisdiction may play a big role in the outcome.
It's just too expensive for most inventors to file anywhere overseas so this may or may not be a factor.
Falcon, have you ever read the story of the Windsurfer patent and Hoyle Sweitzer vs Darby? I don't have the url but Darby had experimented for years with boards and sails and Schweitzer was issued a patent on some of the things later claimed by Darby. Schweitzer got to keep his patent at reduced claim level and Darby went on to work with several European board makers. Interesting story;if I've got it right, Darby didn't file a patent and only started to take action after the Schweitzer patent was issued. Had he protected himself earlier he probably would have done a lot better.
=======================================
Found it! Darby vs Schweitzer
http://americanhistory.si.edu/archives/d8625.htm

 

All these things make me laugh, u really have to live in america to see that. All this technology has been used for at least 10-15 years in France.
I hope that CBTFco will lose it, it will finally clear out all this patent problem. At least, thanks to sailing anarchy, this has gone public, and it shows that the "patent" is only working in the states.
By the way, i am not saying that CBTFco work and studies of the configuration is rubbish, i just dont see how they first managed to patent the "idea".

 

Maximus hasnt infringed anything. It only infringes if a jury says so, so if you claim that it has infringed, you better be able to back that up with a jurys verdict. Does CBTFco have enough resources to be able to afford possibly a long trial? Will it be able to defend itself if EBS Yachting countersues? What if Skandia and Nicorette happen to get involved with this? Worse, what if all of them decide to use their resources to undermine CBTFco's case? I hope you are right about CBTF aggressively defending their patent, because if they dont then it really shouldnt exist in the first place.

 

Hear-hear! This whole thing really is getting quite silly, at least from a european point of view!

My guess is that CBTFco's patent is only valid in USA. If not, why would they wait until Maximus arrived in the States to take action? The result of this may very well be that maxi-yachts with any kind of movable, ballast-carrying appendages will stay away from American waters. Who will gain what if this happens?

BTW: Have any of the CBTFco people ever heard of Ben Lexcen? He patented the winged keel and declared that he wouldn't come after anyone who designed or built a yacht with such a keel. Ben Lexcen was a guy who deserved the respect and admiration of all of us!

 

Cbtf

Hey DS: Actually, I'm fairly well versed in CBTF technology -far more so than the "average lay person" due to a long history of working with it and the patent holders. But any comments I might make on the details of the case would still be speculation though somewhat informed speculation.
Incidently, I've designed more full size boats than I have rc boats...

 

CBTFco wants the money apparently.And they are an American company. Lexcen was Australian, not American.thats why he patented his keel but didnt defend it. He wanted credit for its invention, but he didnt want money off of other people using it. If he did, the Cup would probably still be Australia, as S & S '87 and the winning (I)ACC's have had wings on their keels.

 

What projects have you worked with the patent holders on?

Please provide this list and links so we can see them. I'm assuming you mean you've designed full sized boats that have been built, right?

I know you crow endlessly about your "non-foiling" 16 footer. When did it last sail?

What other full size boats have you produced? Are they as successful?

 

list/resume

Well, lets see,a 66' power catamaran(Guilford Construction), a 36' houseboat(Guilford Construction), a 20' planing trimaran(myself) ,a 14' planing trimaran(myself), an expermental 15'dinghy with a circular cockpit and molded in leeboards(Kona Corporation), an 18'daysailer(80 built and sold(Thompson Sailcraft-Fl.), a 14' catamaran windsurfer with patented rig for Kona Corporation(188 sold),a 16' experimental catamaran, a 23' daysailer/ weekender(Thompson Sailcraft). All of these I designed and built or built the tooling for except for the 23 that didn't get built.I'm involved in a project now with Eric Sponberg to design and develop a 14' foiler using some of what has been learned on the 16' foiler as well as from the Moth foiler. The 16 footer is about to undergo extensive modifications to change the hull for lower speed takeoff and to incorporate buoyancy pods for easier handling.Numerous recent innovations are being incorporated in both boats-specifically in terms of righting moment, foil control, steering and rig refinement and control.
In models, I designed the first production rc symetrical spinnaker boat(patented ); the first production rc asymetrical spinnaker system; the first PRODUCTION rc sailng foiler,the F3. I've worked for years to develop and test rc model versions of CBTF with the direct assistance of CBTFco.I designed and developed the "Wing TipRig™" which is used on all my rc models and allows a nearly rectangular planform w/o full battens.A client of mine,at my suggestion, sponsored a design and study by Graham Bantock,one of the worlds best model yacht designers to investigate the viability of CBTF in the F100 one meter.
In addition to which I designed and patented one of the first systems ever used to video pilot an rc helicopter to out of sight ranges.
Also conceived of and patented the kFOIL™ a system utilzing wings that fold within a canting keel bulb as a solution to lateral resistance.
Thats four US Letters Patents(going on 8)..
=====================================
So Paul what have you built, designed ect?
How many patents do you have ?
Why is it that you can't talk about technologies like foiling or CBTF- you seem to not be able to contribute at all to the understanding of anything- your principal activity seems to be uninformed criticism. Just looking under this topic or the Foiler topic there are hardly any contributions by you; why is that? Where have you made any positive contributions to the understanding of any modern technology?

 

Err, Doug, s'cuse me but how can you say (on the one hand) "Maximus has infringed their patent" and present that as a fact, then say (on the other hand) "it is probably impossible for a layperson to accurately judge the details of the CBTF patent as compared to the Maximus system or any other system. There are really important nuances to patent law that require a patent lawyer to properly evaluate."

Surely given that you are (IHMO) correct on the second point, you can't know you're right on the first point?

Secondly, that 20% improvement in upwind speed through CBTF - sorry but is that really a claim that CBTF goes about 2 knots faster (which is about 20% of the upwind speed of these boats)? That's more than the difference between, say a J/24 and a J/35. It's more than the difference between a (pre foil) modern Moth and a Laser Radial....that's a big improvement to come from a different foil arrangement.

 

Re "BTW: Have any of the CBTFco people ever heard of Ben Lexcen? He patented the winged keel and declared that he wouldn't come after anyone who designed or built a yacht with such a keel. Ben Lexcen was a guy who deserved the respect and admiration of all of us!"

Ben-Bob was a fine man, but AFAIK the winged keel patent would last about.....hmmm as long as it took to show the court the article in an early '70s "Modern Boating" magazine where Alan Payne (designer of Gretel 1 and II) and Warwick Hood (designer of Damn Pity) drew up a "crystal ball" 12 metre WITH WINGLETS.

 

Hey Doug, how does the WingTip (TM) rig differ from a gaff rig with a short gaff?

 

does any one have any info on early canting keel 55ft double ender called red herring. think was a dave hubbard design?
schooner rig, fwd canard

 

Cbtf

CT, reread my post 238- I did NOT say that there was a 20% increase in windward performance thru CBTF but using the same configuration used on Maximus that CBTFco tested fullsize. It is my understanding that the 20% improvement was compared to a canting keel boat with a fixed form of lateral resistance and nonoptimized keel fin.
As to the assesment that Maximus violated CBTFco's patent: that judgement was NOT made by me but was made by a patent lawyer and relayed to me by one of the patent holders.
The Wing Tip Rig™ IS basically a modern gaff rig with a difference that it also has an upper outhaul in addition to peak and throat adjustments. On rc models full battens don't (generaly) work very well and this rig allowed an improvement in planform without them.

 

....again from Scuttlebutt
* From Zachie J de Beer (re CBTF technology): Sailing boats are less well understood that aircraft for obvious reasons. A forward foil (canard) as a lifting surface is not a new idea, the Wright Brothers and people before them used a forward lifting surface on early aircraft. In an aircraft the twin or triple lifting surface design can be made stall proof and the overall lift/drag ratio looks very good because all the foils provide positive lift, in a conventional aircraft the tail is pushing down (thus increasing drag). People like the famous Bert Rutan of Scaled Composites argued that overall fuel consumption would be better (for the canard design). During the later 80's a paper in the AIAA Journal (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) investigated the problem and found that should one try to optimize the overall planform the optimum was found with the smallest wing at the back. The downwash created by the front wing affects the rear wing and cancels the "obvious" benefit. There is much more to learn from this paper

 

Cbtf

Interesting. The fact is that CBTF is a race winning technology-see previous posts to this thread. And in the only two meetings I'm aware of between "TMF" boats and CBTF , CBTF has won boat for boat in one case and on corrected time in the other case.(See earlier post for details.)
You can't get away from the fact that CBTF is fast-very fast.......