Sport, Trick and Freestyle Kite Flying Forum

Moderators: Craig, Davey, SpOoC

  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
 
User avatar
Play365
FA Supporter
FA Supporter
Posts: 420
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 5:51 pm
Location: Leighton Buzzard England

Sun Aug 10, 2008 9:20 am

Slow Dog wrote:
Anyone done any of the following?

Image

Quads with standoffs. It's what made dualies trickable, isn't it?

Or maybe just adding more drive and dualie-style pull turns without losing quadish brake and spinnyness.

Or of no real benefit at all, of course. I can't see I'd have much trouble making, say, the third; but I'm not an experienced enough quad flyer to know what it was I'd done....

Idea developed from top-right to bottom left, from Rev-ish things to most-likely over-floppy dualies with too many strings. I think you'd want more frame across the middle to stiffen it up to make a more trickable quad.


Image to be considered prior art for patent purposes, assuming no-one else got there first. This being a possibly useless statement intended to prevent patent-happy readers running off with the idea.






What like this ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xneUivau ... re=related
 
jburka
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 6:27 pm
Location: Washington, DC
Contact:

Tue Aug 12, 2008 6:53 pm

Zippy8 wrote:
The 2008 and 1988 911 have virtually no components in common. Whilst the name has remained the same it has gone through 4 major redesigns, gained 4WD, a change to the cooling system..... and more. They may share a common layout and form but that's where the similarity ends.


And a modern rev (1.5B) has different fabric, different spars (race rods are nothing like classic Advantage), not to mention a different cut to the sail...in addition to a carefully designed panel layout (with rotated grain on every panel) to optimise flight characteristics and aging. From a distance, a 1988 Rev I and a 2008 B-Series might have a common layout and form, but that's where the similarity ends.

If someone does come along with something genuinely new but all it gets is "yeah.... but it's not a Rev." then there isn't a lot of point. You've seen Steffen's Knockout I'm sure - it does non-Rev. things - interested or not ?


Hmmm. Genuinely new quads. How about the Synergy Deca or the Symphony, from Merrick Munday, both of which were patented. Neither of these flew anything like a Rev. Both were used in major competitions in the US and had major followings (well, the Symphony less-so, but I certainly saw it around a lot in the mid-90s). Obviously, the Airbow has already been pointed out ad nauseum. There's also the Spirit by Steve LaPorte. I've owned most of these and flown all of them many times. The only one that I'd ever choose to fly over a Rev on any given day might be a Deca. Might.

The point is that plenty of people have tried plenty of other interesting and unique quad configurations. Some of them are still around, some aren't. The fact that you can't commercialize a Rev derivative should have no effect on innovation in the Quad space: assuming, of course, you can come up with a competitive design. And that seems to be the tricky part.

I've seen two major design tweaks to the Rev over the 19+ years I've been flying them. The first was when someone chopped off the bottom tips of a kite and used two verticals on either side. I don't know if Revolution Kites came up with the same idea on their own or not, but they've commercialized it as the Speed Series.

The other major tweak has been the use of quad/magic sticks (aka training wheels). Rev would be willing to sell those if they could manage to not lose money doing so. As it is, they're available as an after-market addition that's easy to add to your kite, and Revolution certainly doesn't care what you do to their sail after you've bought it from them.

I write as someone who has made my own design tweaks to my favorite Rev, the II. While the IIs I build and fly can use a stock Rev II frame, the sail is cut differently and the flight characteristics are different. Do I think I've innovated anything? Hell no -- I think I've made a kite I personally prefer to fly.

This "innovation" thing that keeps being brought up is nothing but a red herring. Inventors have opportunities. If they're unable to best the Rev design, then we don't need their "innovations." And if you really think there's some value you could add through innovating the Rev platform then by all means buy yourself a factory rev, make those mods, and re-sell it...your innovations will surely be worth the premium you'd need to charge to make back the costs of buying the initial Rev, right?
 
User avatar
Ian Newham
FA Supporter
FA Supporter
Posts: 1236
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 3:57 pm
Location: Notts/Derby UK
Contact:

Tue Aug 12, 2008 7:34 pm

jburka wrote:
...The fact that you can't commercialize a Rev derivative should have no effect on innovation in the Quad space: assuming, of course, you can come up with a competitive design. And that seems to be the tricky part.
...
This "innovation" thing that keeps being brought up is nothing but a red herring. Inventors have opportunities. If they're unable to best the Rev design, then we don't need their "innovations."


Hi Jeff,
I commented on the innovation issue too - my personal concern was that Revolution had used their patent in 2 cases that really didn't appear to be too Rev-like, one of which was IMO an improvement; the Quadriphant and the Quadraflex. I'm not too worried about the Quadriphant :-) but the Quadraflex copy[1] I tried was a very nice kite, so in that instance a patent did appear stifle one innovation.

In fairness, other quad patent holders may have done similar things but I'm not aware of them and I certainly have no problem with Revolution defending themselve against cloners.

[1] I obviously couldn't get my hands on a real one because of the patent
 
User avatar
Slow Dog
Posts: 236
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 1:01 pm
Location: Rugby

Wed Aug 13, 2008 10:37 am

jburka wrote:
if you really think there's some value you could add through innovating the Rev platform then by all means buy yourself a factory rev, make those mods, and re-sell it...


Apart from it being financial nonsense, Revolution could stop you from doing that for numerous reasons. Or threaten to...

I write as someone who has made my own design tweaks to my favorite Rev, the II. While the IIs I build and fly can use a stock Rev II frame, the sail is cut differently and the flight characteristics are different. Do I think I've innovated anything? Hell no -- I think I've made a kite I personally prefer to fly.


Re-iterating Zippy's very first point: You couldn't sell your tweaked version as your own design, even though you think it flies better, because of the patent. Yet that's exactly what's happened with dual liners. An iterative process of minor tweaks by different designers, with incrementally different flying characteristics, leading to dual line kites that fly radically differently from those of twenty years ago. Whereas Revs have stayed the same.
 
jburka
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 6:27 pm
Location: Washington, DC
Contact:

Wed Aug 13, 2008 2:29 pm

Slow Dog wrote:
Apart from it being financial nonsense, Revolution could stop you from doing that for numerous reasons. Or threaten to...

Financial nonsense, yes (or at least probably; if I can take a rev and make it fly twice as a well as a bog-standard one, I might be able to sell my modified rev for a profit...but it's no business model).

But no, Rev couldn't stop you on legal grounds, thanks to the first-sale doctrine. And, in fact, they currently allow people to buy custom sails in a single color and applique or otherwise add artwork.

Re-iterating Zippy's very first point: You couldn't sell your tweaked version as your own design, even though you think it flies better, because of the patent.


I think it flies better, but not everyone else would. And I have no interest in going to the production business, so the fact that my version of the Rev isn't on the market is irrelevant to me.


An iterative process of minor tweaks by different designers, with incrementally different flying characteristics, leading to dual line kites that fly radically differently from those of twenty years ago.


First, as I've said, there's nothing to stop you from making tweaks to the design and flying your own variants. While you can point to an article from 18(!) years ago about how evil the Hadzickis are, it's more instructive to look at their actual behavior. I've certainly never been hassled for flying my own kites in their presence...hell, Joe once gave me a Revolution hat one day while I was flying one of my IIs. Ben has no problem with me flying my kites...and has been known to take the handles from me.

In the DC area, we have a group of people who came up with their own variant, the 1.6. I personally dislike the way it flies, but it has its adherents. I see lots of them around, and Revolution doesn't really care.

What's interesting to me about the Rev patent is that it controls multiple very different things: the layout, the bridle, the mesh, the handles. I suspect that where Ted ran afoul of the patent for the Quadraflex was the bridle. If you look at a Rev's bridle in flight, it's much like the much-later Active bridle from Andy Wardley, in the way it changes with the various angles of attack the Rev is capable of. The Hadzickis patented their bridle, while Andy (also an OSS proponent) didn't. I have no problem with either side's decision on that matter.

If you're so anxious to practice iterative design on a quad, why not pick one of the many others that have been around through the last 20 years and work on that? Why the Rev?

Whereas Revs have stayed the same.


No. They haven't. Again, with 19 years of experience flying quad (and well over 30 flying dual), I can categorically state that the Rev has evolved. The mechanics of flying a B might be the same as they were for an original I, but they kite is not the same. And that's not even looking at fundamental changes like we see in the Speed Series (no mesh, curved leading edge, etc.)
 
User avatar
Slow Dog
Posts: 236
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 1:01 pm
Location: Rugby

Wed Aug 13, 2008 4:35 pm

jburka wrote:
If you're so anxious to practice iterative design on a quad, why not pick one of the many others that have been around through the last 20 years and work on that? Why the Rev?

Mostly because the thread about whether there would be better quad line kites if the Rev patent were freely available as a basis for innovation.

Less glibly:
Maybe the Rev *is* the best basic Quad design (and many seem to think it's the best of those that are available), and thus the best starting point for a better quad.

Or, because the patent includes aspects that other quads have to be sub-optimally designed to avoid - if a"better" quad of any point of the past twenty years had a continuously sparred leading edge, it would be prevented from producing and selling it (in the States, at least).

It's all unanswerable, of course.
 
User avatar
sftonkin
FA Supporter
FA Supporter
Posts: 1957
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2004 8:43 am
Location: Fordingbridge
Contact:

Wed Aug 13, 2008 7:52 pm

jburka wrote:
.... The fact that you can't commercialize a Rev derivative should have no effect on innovation in the Quad space: assuming, of course, you can come up with a competitive design. And that seems to be the tricky part...


Given some of the uncontested assertions in this thread, it seems that the "tricky part" where Revolution is concerned is that they don't mind you developing a quad line kite as long as it doesn't meet the condition 3<n<5 (where n is the number of lines)!
Last edited by sftonkin on Wed Aug 13, 2008 9:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
User avatar
Bill Lancashire
FA Supporter
FA Supporter
Posts: 356
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:57 am
Location: Bassaleg, NEWPORT, Wales

Wed Aug 13, 2008 7:52 pm

As a matter of interest, when does the 'Rev' patent expire?. My understanding is that 'design patents' expire 14 years after full application and cannot be renewed.

Bill.
 
Elvis
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 10:03 pm

Wed Aug 13, 2008 8:35 pm

Oh its too good to miss.

Did Flexifoil patent any of thier designs?

From the Dunford Delta back in the seventies how long did it take to get to a good trick two line kite? Was that patented? So what held up the inovation?

I blame STACK after all the figures for competition favour the Revolution style kite. Perhaps all the quad kite makers should sue STACK?

Why are there now more Rev teams than Dual line teams?

And the best one,

on the cost of stuff crossing the pond, check out some of the software we pay for here... or games consoles or cars, or or or shall I stop now.
 
Andy S
King of FA
Posts: 9273
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 11:53 am
Location: In my house
Contact:

Wed Aug 13, 2008 8:51 pm

Elvis wrote:
or or or shall I stop now.


Please do. You're not making the slightest bit of sense.
 
Elvis
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 10:03 pm

Wed Aug 13, 2008 9:55 pm

Elvis wrote:
or or or shall I stop now.


Please do. You're not making the slightest bit of sense.

I'm in the right place then Mr Bubbles.

Thing is Mike (Zippy) is just winding you all up.

Elvis has left the building....
 
User avatar
Zippy8
Topic Author
Posts: 5954
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: Vihtavuori, Finland
Contact:

Wed Aug 13, 2008 9:58 pm

jburka wrote:
From a distance, a 1988 Rev I and a 2008 B-Series might have a common layout and form, but that's where the similarity ends.

But it's still a Rev., isn't it Jeff ? Today's Gemini is quite a different beast too but it's still a Gemini.

The only one that I'd ever choose to fly over a Rev on any given day might be a Deca. Might.

And I'm not arguing that it's a poor choice. I am arguing that your choice may have been artificially limited. All I've heard against that has been:-
a) so what
b) shut up
I understand the brand loyalty that Rev. have built up, I understand that there are people who don't like to hear anything in the way of criticism of their favourite kitemakers but I don't rate this as much of counter-argument.

The fact that you can't commercialize a Rev derivative should have no effect on innovation in the Quad space

I would love for someone as experienced in "the Quad space" as yourself to point out exactly how the Quadriphant, which was challenged by Rev. pretty damn aggressively, can be thought by any sane process to be a Rev. derivative.

If you're so anxious to practice iterative design on a quad, why not pick one of the many others that have been around through the last 20 years and work on that? Why the Rev?

It came up on the GWTW forum post I referenced. To the best of my knowledge they are the only people to have... made use... of a kite related patent in the manner that they have. Again I invite you to imagine "the Dual line space" if Tabor's patent had been used similarly.

Drop by again. We're not always this stroppy. :evil:

Mike.
 
User avatar
Jest_of_EVE
FA Supporter
FA Supporter
Posts: 2440
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:48 pm
Location: The exact opposite side of the planet to New Zealand - Bummer!

Wed Aug 13, 2008 10:01 pm

Thing is Mike (Zippy) is just winding you all up.


Hmmm. 6 posts and a comment like that :?

Mike is no ding-a-ling. Seriously, 'winding people up' is a little beneath his intellect.

He does love a debate though (nuff said).

Mark
 
User avatar
Zippy8
Topic Author
Posts: 5954
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: Vihtavuori, Finland
Contact:

Wed Aug 13, 2008 10:05 pm

Jest_of_EVE wrote:
Seriously, 'winding people up' is a little beneath his intellect.

I should like to make it clear at this stage that nothing, NOTHING is beneath my intellect.

This is mostly not about winding people up but it's not something I would put past me. :wink:

Mike.
 
User avatar
sftonkin
FA Supporter
FA Supporter
Posts: 1957
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2004 8:43 am
Location: Fordingbridge
Contact:

Wed Aug 13, 2008 10:24 pm

Zippy8 wrote:
I should like to make it clear at this stage that nothing, NOTHING is beneath my intellect.


Oh. EVERYTHING is below mine. :wink:
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9