But we bought the damper because a customer did not like something specific about it and mentioned it to us, so we took a look. I in fact have never used the damper and have no idea where it even is.

Is not some sort of threading device used on the roll up it goat stoves. Did Ed not publish a roll up stove in 2002 well before ti goat came out with one.?

There are a lot of original concepts in our gear, so before you go on the attack perhaps you should look at yourself.

We originally had an interchangeable vent / stove jack due to customer suggestion. We moved on to a dedicated vent and stove jack ( that can close) last fall. The concept, while having some merit was to fiddly for us. It is still available on the three person, but the rest have both. The fact of the matter was, almost everyone was using the tents specifically with stoves, so the additional flexibility had little value for us.

Companies should listen to their customers, and try to integrate features customers suggest, we do it often, it's really a part of R&D. We also strive for continuous improvements, such as changing the orientation and cuts of our liners to vertical with a slightly extreme cat cut to result in a tight liner with a dedicated air space that results in very little loss of space.


When companies are young they try different things, for instance dwr tents, but then they move on, it's a natural progression. We have not attempted to blatantly build our business on the back of another vendors forum as some reportedly have.

We communicate openly, and honestly with customers and perspective customers and try to give them the best solution that works for their intended usage. In fact, I have even recommended other tents and stoves on occassion, when I feel our product does not meet a certain feature they desire the most. An example would be that I often say if lightweight is your primary concern, then a cylinder stove is what you will be most happy with. We have even shown our tents to folks that just wanted to build their own and adviced them on the benefits of one seam orientation vs another. We don't pretend to have a patent on a lightweight tipi, nor do we pretend to have some specific guarded knowledge. What we do have is experience in building tents and stoves , with a variety of features and seam orientations combined with very experienced seamstresses, and talented metal workers. We couple that with the fact that we really really strive to go above and beyond on customer service. If you are our customer, we will listen to your suggestions, we will advise you appropriately, we will take care of you to insure enjoyable backcountry outings.

Kevin

No, Ed did not publish a roll up stove in 2002, before TiGoat. I suggest you get your facts straight. As ussual, you dont know what you are talking about. Ed has had a number of cylinder stove designs, and the early ones were all made from cylinder containers, and did not roll up. And none of that would change the fact that he used an industry discount, to purchase materials from TiGoat, to go into business, building stoves for you.

So your stove boots were what dimensions? And how did you come to that?

Come on, its not like people were waiting for 2 years to get a product, so you saw a niche to fill, because people wanted them. When TiGoat went into business, it was done implicitly with a finger in the air to the competition, and a stark contrast in what was offered. If you stood out in some way shape or form, or at least were not so passive in your aggresion, I might respect that.

I am almost always the first to offer a hand to new guys, which is why I have not said much until now. And as for the new guy thing, I'd been in the outdoor industry awhile when I was getting my guides, rooms, and meals comped in Ouray, in 1998, just to put things into "your" realm. I built my first conical tent in spinaker, in 1994, around the same time I sewed my first tarp on an industrial machine. You've been doing this how long?

I did not really read your post, you stand out how?

Do your customers want to know how to make a bottomless stove work?

If your customers told you to jump off a bridge.........

Also, I'm dying to know, did you read any trappers journals before you moved from Texas to Colorado?

I forgot, I sewed my first DWR tent in '94(home machine), nothing new, they still get sewn to this day. That is a matter of mass market, verses more specialized user groups.

And attempting to impugn me on my bad behavior, especially that performed on other forums, wont get you far. I wear it like a jacket, it cold weather. Notice how things got quiet, and its just you and me ;-)

Kevin

One last question: I see that you are doing a tent out of heavier fabric, and a cone stove. You'ld be cool with me doing tents out of heavier fabric, along with a cone stove stove, right?

Well, some one ponied up that dollar, but it wasnt Kevin :-(

As promised, here is how you make a bottomless stove work. Dig out a pit under the stove, roughly 1-2 times the volume of the stove. That part is obvious. To make it function properly, you have to employ the "child in a well" technique. dig/bore a hole ~2-3" in diameter, paralell to the pit under the stove. Dig this to the same depth as the pit under the stove. Now connect the pit under the stove, with the parallel bore, by means of another 2-3" bored hole at their bottoms. This can also be achieved by over excavating and then using foil tubes that are back filled into place. Voila, you now have air intake into the bottom of the expanded burn chamber, which allows the bottomless stove to double or triple its capacity. The burn can be controlled via a ground level "damper" over the parallel bore.

I dont "pretend to have some specific guarded knowledge". Its not pretend, its called a fundamental understanding of the art and science. Something you have failed to demonstrate.

We're cool with me building tents with heavier fabric, and doing cone stoves, right?

So I was contacted by Brian at Wyoming Lost and Found(you think I have an attitude problem :-) He was pretty clear informing me that heavy fabric tipis were his "turf". Upon further examination of the matter, it does appear that the "more durable" tipi market is what he has had staked out for some time now. I wont speak for him, but it was comical to see him level similar charges at SO. So after some interesting negotiations, he is cool with me building heavier fabric tipis.

So, Kevin, Brian says yea, how about you?

Hi Josh

> He was pretty clear informing me that heavy fabric tipis were his "turf".

I slept in a tipi in the 50s, with my father. OK, it was in the backyard, but so what?

In the 80s I helped a young hippie girl at work make a 12' high tipi for herself and her boyfriend. When it was finished she invited us to dinner in it. Double bed in there and all. Stock wooden pallets for a floor. Heavy fabric - like canvas. Big bamboo poles.

But the plans for the tipi came from 'Two Little Savages' by Ernest Thompson Seton, published in 1911. Of course, his plans were taken from standard red Indian tipis probably a hundred or more years old.

To claim any ownership today of any aspect of tipi design is questionable, if nothing else.

Cheers

Edited by rcaffin on 04/15/2012 03:53:26 MDT.

Context, Rodger, context.

Canister stoves are just canister stoves, correct? So when Chinese manufactures, copy numerous features, of a specific stove, especially key features, and names, of established stove designs, your OK with that?

Kevin

Rodger says I'm good to do it too.

Rodger

While we're at it, I'm looking at building and selling tunnel tents too. Do you think you could sell me some of that good Sil you have, at a dicount of course. And to make my R&D a little easier, what are say the 4 or 5 most defining features of your tents. I mean they are already reviewed and tested, so that will help me out considerably. Thanks ;-) At least I ask.

Hi Josh

> So when Chinese manufacturers copy numerous features of a specific stove, especially > key features, and names, of established stove designs, your OK with that?
It's a whole lot more complex than that, at least with China and stoves.

Copying a name is a trademark infringement. That's a No Go.

But copying a stove ... well, it is extremely likely that the Chinese company made the original under contract anyhow. In many cases the design of the stove was not even fully specified by the Western company. They simply provided some sketches of what they wanted, or sketched some small changes to an existing Chinese design. Look at the Gnat for instance: it's simply a rebadged Fire-Maple FMS116T stove. It's also sold by other companies with different logos printed on the side.

Well, canisters? Only a couple of companies fill canisters, and they are mostly in Asia. Dae Ryuk Can Co in Korea makes canisters for Kovea, MSR and many others. All these good canisters seem to use the Lindal valve made by the Lindal company. But they will put any paint job you want on the steel.

You might think that this makes stoves a poor example. However, many cheaper day packs are designed and made by Chinese companies, and then sold to Western companies with an optional logo imprinted on the bag. I get offers for this every week, literally. Other packs are 'designed' by Western companies and made by Chinese companies, but what the Western company often provides are nothing more than marketing sketches of 'what would be nice'. No technical details are provided AT ALL.

What about titanium pots? Most of them are variants on the basic Kingsound pot designs. Kingsound have the technology and the carbide dies to make the pots, so everyone buys them from them, with logos added.

It is easy to claim that A copied B's design for a tipi, and it is easy to even compare photos. But considering that the tipi design is hundreds of years old, and is a Red Indian design anyhow, I really doubt anyone has a leg to stand on.

What counts here is value, performance and service.

It's all a bit of a giggle, really.

Cheers

Hi Josh

> I'm looking at building and selling tunnel tents too.
Good. We need more manufacturers of tunnel tents.

> what are say the 4 or 5 most defining features of your tents. I mean they are already
> reviewed and tested,
Tested, yes.
Reviewed? As they are not commercially available, they haven't been reviewed yet.
Photo'd - for sure.

Yeah, I'm nit-picking. But seriously, no-one thinks I invented tunnels. I have no claim to the basic design. It may be a hard world, but I prefer to focus on providing good design, good performance, and good support. They give me satisfaction.

Cheers
PS: the 4 or 5 defining features? Read the article at the head of this channel: they are all there!

Edited by rcaffin on 04/15/2012 04:22:52 MDT.

Rodger

I'm not suggesting you invented the tunnel tent, that would be ignorant. I'm just asking if I can ride on your coat tails. I dont have a back ground in tunnel tents, I have not done the work, nor do I understand the concepts. So if I can just duplicate your efforts, it will save me allot of time and learning.

But maybe my thinking is wrong. Are all tunnel tents, just tunnel tents? or are there stand out features and designs out there?

So I should just copy from the article?

Rodger

OK, So I read the article. Appearantly tunnel tents, are NOT, just tunnel tents. There appears to be some key features, that define effective designs. So if all tunnel tents are not created equally, and are a function of the sum of their individual attributes and parts, I propose that the same applies to tipi/lavvu/conical/pyrimid tents. Sound reasonable? Now obviously this applies to gnat variants, kingsound pots, and chinese day backs also. The difference being that those are all single source items.

If I remember correctly, you've made a few statements about intelectual property rights before?

.


Edit: I see what is going on here. Carry on.

Edited by kthompson on 04/15/2012 14:59:50 MDT.

Are you cool with Josh using your spelling?

Rodger, roger, its all the same, its just details. A canister stove is a canister stove, a tunnel tent is a tunnel tent, a tipi is a tipi, a Rodger is a rodger, right? The details dont matter.

Hi Josh

> the same applies to tipi/lavvu/conical/pyrimid tents. Sound reasonable?
I guess so. I am just not sure where this is heading.

> you've made a few statements about intelectual property rights before?
That is true, BUT I have also said that there is very little new in this game, so anyone's ability to claim IP rights is very limited. Yes, I support IP rights, but equally I oppose any unjustified extension of a claim beyond what is strictly provable.

In this case, seems to me the IP rights to most tipi features belong to some Red Indian who died hundreds of years ago. I am happy to be shown new and novel features, but they would have to be 'non-obvious to someone skilled in the arts', to use the patent language.

Maybe you should write an article on tipis for BGT?

Cheers

"> the same applies to tipi/lavvu/conical/pyrimid tents. Sound reasonable?
I guess so. I am just not sure where this is heading." -----This may be headed towards a business venture or two, but mostly I'm just reinforcing my claims of bad business practices against Kevin and EdT. But, like my business venture coment suggests, they may really be on to something. That is why I am looking at your tunnel tent a little differently now. Like I said, I dont know anything about them, but maybe I dont need to. That part is appealling

"> you've made a few statements about intelectual property rights before?
That is true, BUT I have also said that there is very little new in this game, so anyone's ability to claim IP rights is very limited. Yes, I support IP rights, but equally I oppose any unjustified extension of a claim beyond what is strictly provable." ----I'm sure my patent lawyer can address this better, but trying to apply the burden and level of novelty, required for a patent is excessive in this case. That does not negate the fact that products are a sum of their parts and features. It is industry norm to borrow and adapt those individual parts, designs, and features, for a number of reasons. Maybe a new use, maybe making something more affordable, maybe making it lighter, etc. But, if you use many individual parts, designs, and features(especially in multiple products) and you are not greatly distinguishable in some way shape of form, from those that came before, ie. innovation, better materials, price, function, etc. You are just copying and profiting, overwhelmingly, on some one elses work. Two reasons to do this. First, you cant innovate on your own, and your not skilled or knowledgable. Second, its much easier to follow in other peoples footsteps. Just like with finished products being a sum of their parts, either one of these on their own is understandable, but togther, they constitute some inexcusable behavior.

"In this case, seems to me the IP rights to most tipi features belong to some Red Indian who died hundreds of years ago. I am happy to be shown new and novel features, but they would have to be 'non-obvious to someone skilled in the arts', to use the patent language." ----The US Patent office disagrees with you on this, and there is long standing history to support their assertion. The first being a patent, on what you would call a "tipi". Its about details, not just one detail, but the sum of many details, and the way they work together. Some parts very key and central, while others work in conjuction with lesser and greater elements to create a unique final product. How unique?, depends on who makes it, and what you compare it to. Also, while I am not exactly indigenous to this continent, some of the folks that call me "Brother", would much prefer the terms American Indian, or First Nations People.

"Maybe you should write an article on tipis for BGT?" -----Maybe, that would be a good way to launch things. Let me start another thread, and ask my potential customers what they would like to see. I am told it is they, that I should listen to on this.