Greenline hull design protected?

Anyone know what the "protected" features or design elements of the Greenline Superdisplacement hull are? Are they claiming functional patent protection or design rights protection?
http://www.greenlinehybrid.com

 

It is called marketing.

Saying it is "protected" gives the impression it has some "magic" to it, ergo, you must buy to believe!

Just usual sales nonsense, unless you fall this type of marketing...

 

I agree with AH, the main reason is probably marketing-related. Take any recent boat brochure or catalogue and you'll see that nearly all of them will claim some revolutionary, innovative and patended solution for their hulls.

Relative to Greenline, the claim could be due to these hull details:





The chines become very wide soon after they leave the bow area, and the initially deep vertical stem blends into a very flat stern. Together with the low-weight vacuum-bagged structure it presumably gives a vessel with relatively low flat-water resistance allowing it to attain high displacement speeds, but the behaviour in a chop or in a following sea would be something to discuss about imho. Anyways, it is just another way to obtain the same or a very similar performance to what could be obtained with more traditional hull shapes, for the same weight. FCFC has noted and illustrated it very efficiently in this post: http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/hybrid/hybrid-propulsion-system-37913.html#post484879

Back to the above photos. The last one is taken from their pdf catalogue (it is small and blurred because that's how it appears in the pdf). What puzzles me is the tiny bump which can be seen right in front of the tunnel. I don't know if it actually exists on a real hull, would like to hear from someone who has seen the actual boat. If it does, then is it there:
a) for structural reasons
b) to accomodate the shaft, transmission or another internal part
c) for hydrodynamic reasons (wave reduction, prop inflow enhancer etc)
d) for some other purpose?

Cheers

 

Agree that it is marketing hype but was wondering if they managed to get a patent on something. Their marketing text seems to have shifted from "patent pending" to "protected".

Thanks for the photos of the hull out of the water.

The below water part of the hull is nothing revolutionary. Very similar to a number of other boats designed to operate efficiently at Froude numbers up to 0.6 or so. The wide chines permit a more "usual" power boat shape above the waterline but I also wonder about behavior in a chop.

 

I fear what is protected is the word "SuperDisplacement". Sometime, it appears with a TM behind. So, you cannot design a hull, and call it "SuperDisplacement".

 

Excuse me, but it's not a bump, it's a hollow (check the light/ shadow side on the hull). It is the forward part of propeller tunnel, as you have noted exists, effectively visible on stern view photo.

 

You are certainly right.
So, nothing new to "discover" there: THE miracle hull has not been designed yet

 

Looks like a bump to me, ahead of the tunnel. I am diagnosing it as an umbilical hernia.

 

The best defense is a good offense. You can't stop someone from a concerted effort, but you can wave off the want-a-bee's with a simple comment, such as "patent pending" or proprietary protection adjectives. It's much like the firewall on your computer. The majority of folks that might be inclined, will run smack into it and give up, but the determined hacker will get through regardless of your protection.

 

If they says "Patent Pending" and latter on they say "Protected" it means the patent bureau refused give a patent to the design.
Protected do not exist in patent system. They will have said: The country and then patented and if they are truly correct the number of the patent.
If you don't have all that, take the design and copy it.
They can copyright if they want the concept name, like the picnick boat, which as no validity since the pic nickboat existed as a rowing family boat in France in the nineteen century.
But boat builder are very insecure, and always in the brink of going belly up. It is a bad business, so to survive this can be some solution: find a shoemaker to buy your yard, have a very wealthy customer who repeatedly order a new boat, or have a wealthy family member or if you don't have all that, print glossy brochure, show your boat at boat show and tell the people one thing: the hull is "protected" and prove it showing a stupid drawing all blue and red, and lot of green if it's possible (hoping for a federal grant)
Lister

 

I'm hoping to go for a run in a Greenline in the not too distant future...I'm looking forward to seeing how she behaves in a chop too. Those big wide chines make a clopping noise when you rock the boat in the marina....I imagine she'd make quite a racket at anchor if there was anything much in the way of a slop.
I also wonder whether they are sufficiently radiussed to avoid slamming under way too - though I have read a test or two on the boat and they were quite impressed with the seakeeping.

As for the "protected" thing, I agree - it is clearly all part of the marketing. And Greenline have certainly been succesful on that front - to have a waiting list in these tough times is quite a feat in itslef.
Let's just hope that the beurecrats who have handed them this 'protection' haven't afforded them sole right to the use of something that has been in the poublic domain for eons...as has happened on a number of well publicized occaisions before...

 

The only thing they have that's protected is their pocket book, because regardless of whatever protection they think they may have, if an entity with deeper pockets comes along, with eyes on whatever they have, Greenline gets beat. This is the law of the wild and corporate jungle as well.

 

Ahhh, sometime ago I asked about "bumping out" the beam above or below the water line and seems this is pretty much what I had in mind. That's a good looking boat, I like it!

As to patents and the like, things can be copied in many cases without a commercial purpose and the holder of the patent has to persue enforcement as well. It's a civil action without a commercial aspect and really not worth trying to protect something that yields no financial loss. And, there are always slight variations that could be employed so as not to violate the exact design registered. Ask your attorney....but I'm not advocating stealing designs!!!

 

I'm reminded of the parking garage tickets that say management isn't responsible for theft or damage.

It's been established in multiple courts, time after time, that parking garages are responsible for damage or theft, unless they've exercised reasonable care to protect your vehicle and its contents. But imagine how many claims and potential lawsuits they've avoided over the years, just by spending a few bucks on ink.....

 

The first line of defense is to always deny responsibility! What red light? What baby buggy? That's not my car! Who...Me? I' not even here!