"Michael Daly" ) writes:
On 28-Aug-2003, (William R. Watt) wrote:

there's *nothing* I haven't tried in 6 foot or higher waves. what millponds
do you paddle in? 6 foot waves are for children. we get wakes on the canal
higher than that.

Still bull****ting, huh willy?

what it says in the subject line

Not to mention the wonderful bucket seat in the Ellesmere.


a small concession to comfort. I did like the lower back support on some of
the kayaks I tried. few had any above the hips.

Long, narrow hulls don't roll in waves the way wide stable kayaks do. That's
why deployed sponsons are a bad idea in rough conditions. Not rolling means
more stability in rough conditions.

hull stability comes from both length and beam. a long fast boat can be
just as stable as a short beamy boat. older sailboats were long and narrow
but heavy. moderns sailboats are light and beamy. the apddling and sailing
boat I built with the sponsons on it is both narrow and short. no sponons,
no renetry.


Round bottom hulls have _no_ initial stability. If the shape doesn't change with
angle of heel, there is no position that is more stable. This makes for a very
tippy kayak = not safe.

round bottom boats with sponsons above the waterline have both superior
wave riding and plenty of reserve bouyancy. If you visit my website but
leave off the "/top.htm" you get an indexed list of all the files some of
which are in any HTML references. Scroll down to files bluecanuxx.yyy to
see text and photos describing a boat I made by sawing completely round 55
gal blue plastic barrels in half and mounting sponsons on the gunwales and
read about the stability tests.


Hard chined kayaks typically have excellent secondary stability and are rock
solid in the roughest conditions. That is what the eastern Canadian and
Greenland Inuit used and they could have made their kayaks any way they wanted.

you've fallen into the "traditional" trap. there's no indication they even
imagined round bottom boats. let alone tried and descarded them. with
little in the way of framing material to work with it was materials which
shaped the boat as is the case with all native craft. I wasn't there
either but I still have the better argument.

Waves catch on chines before they catch on sponsons but how much
difference that makes to very light displacement hulls like kayak I don't
know. However, in longer kayaks the chines are also longer and more
subject to wave action.

Waves break when the length is 7 times the height. If the wave crests
match the length of a 20 ft kayak they'll break at 3 ft approx. If the
wave is cresting at one end of a 20 ft kayak and the wave trough is at the
other end that's a 40 foot wave and it will break at 6 ft in height
approx. In either case you should have got off the water before then.

The worst boating situation is waves coming from more than one direction.
You can fall right into a hole in the water. It has happened to me
somewhat artificially in the 7.5 ft boat I have the sponsons on, caught
between 2 ft powerboat wakes on a canal. The sides on the boat are 1 ft
with a 4" draft leaving 9" of freeboard. The beam is 24" like a kayak
(length 7.5 ft as mentioned). Boat didn't ship a drop. The boat sails in
quite stong winds for its size in smaller waves. The key is to lower body
weight (centre of gravity) which a kayak paddler cannot do sitting upright
in a tiny cockpit. I can't see a kayak paddler riding out a storm sitting
bolt upright in a narrow boat without sponsons unless he or she is really
into rolling which I imagine would be exhausing. Better, I think to have a
large cockpit you can lie down in. There have been kayaks, although
homemade by boat desingers and not mass produced, in which one could
recline, even sleep in overnight as Herreshoff did on his.


V-bottoms track well with less weathercocking than round bottoms and are decently
stable if the V is not to sharp. That means less fatigue and hence, more safety.

fatigue = safety in boat design? that's a new argument. you rest
when you get tired. that's safety no matter what boat you're in. I'm not
sure about the V-bottom speed argument as round bottoms have least wetted
surface per pound of displacement. That's just theory and I haven't any
tank tests or computer simulations to support it.

Stop trying to argue with kayakers about kayaks when you don't know anything
about them.

Stop trying to portray necessarily limited and subjective personal
impression as fact. You seem to be arguing from a sea kayaking perspective
using production boats (which are marketed on appearance as much as
anything else).

What's your experince with sponsons? I've used them with good results on
two boats I've desinged and built for myself.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William R Watt National Capital FreeNet Ottawa's free community network
homepage: www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm
warning: non-freenet email must have "notspam" in subject or it's returned

On 31-Aug-2003, (William R. Watt) wrote:

Not to mention the wonderful bucket seat in the Ellesmere.

a small concession to comfort. I did like the lower back support on some of
the kayaks I tried. few had any above the hips.

Major concession. Providing full support to the butt and upper thighs means
_no_ numb legs or circulation issues.

Real kayakers don't want a high back support. If the back support comes above the
hips, it interferes with paddling technique. A low back support is only to keep you
from sliding backwards. Proper technique includes not resting back on your
back support, but sitting upright or leaned slightly forward.

Given that you've never learned how to paddle a kayak properly , you wouldn't know
that.

but heavy. moderns sailboats are light and beamy. the apddling and sailing
boat I built with the sponsons on it is both narrow and short. no sponons,
no renetry.

You complain about kayaks and justify your nonsense because of the
sailboat you built. Get a clue willy!

Round bottom hulls have _no_ initial stability. If the shape doesn't change with
angle of heel, there is no position that is more stable. This makes for a very
tippy kayak = not safe.

round bottom boats with sponsons above the waterline have both superior
wave riding and plenty of reserve bouyancy.

They'll only be above the water line if there are no waves - which is when they
are least useful. They'll give you lots of drag. If you want to paddle a tub, fine -
but don't dictate what kayakers are supposed to use because of your nonsense.
A hull with permanent sponsons is not a round hull - it is a hull with sponsons.
Not the same thing at all.

Hard chined kayaks typically have excellent secondary stability and are rock
solid in the roughest conditions. That is what the eastern Canadian and
Greenland Inuit used and they could have made their kayaks any way they wanted.

you've fallen into the "traditional" trap. there's no indication they even
imagined round bottom boats. let alone tried and descarded them. with
little in the way of framing material to work with it was materials which
shaped the boat as is the case with all native craft. I wasn't there
either but I still have the better argument.

Then kindly explain why there are plenty of examples of Inuit and Aleut craft
that _do_ have round bottoms. The Netsiligmeot kayaks were used on lakes
and rivers and were round bottomed. Aleut baidarkas and kayaks like the
King Island were round bottomed. However, the Eastern Arctic paddlers,
who specialized in sea mammal hunting in rough conditions chose the
hard chine.

There is little real evidence that the Inuit designed and built their craft with
restrictions in resources governing.

Your "better" argument is based on misconception. If you study the
history and development of Inuit and Aleut craft you'd not make such
ridiculous statements. Look up the following authors - Eugene Arima,
David Zimmerly, George Dyson, Harvey Golden - in books and kayaking
magazines and you'll find out the reality of native craft instead of your
fantasies.

Waves catch on chines before they catch on sponsons but how much
difference that makes to very light displacement hulls like kayak I don't
know.

The most important part of your statement is "I don't know". You are
talking through your hat, willy. My hard chined kayak will allow me
to paddle though pushy waves in a straight line, while soft chined
kayaks around me are tracking wildly. Obviously there's more going on
than just the chine shape.

There's a lot more to the performance than the shape of the chine. If you
talk to designers, they will point out that the kayaks can be designed with
roughly the same properties regardless of chine shape. However, most
designs tend towards typical performance characteristics - notably the
difference in how secondary stability is perceived.

When you know what you're talking about, let us know. In the meanwhile,
don't waste our time with your fantasies about craft you know nothing about.

I can't see a kayak paddler riding out a storm sitting
bolt upright in a narrow boat without sponsons unless he or she is really
into rolling which I imagine would be exhausing.

Anyone who sits bolt upright in a kayak deserves what they get. Most of us
let the kayak move beneath us and stay upright as a result. The kayak, if
it fits properly, is an extension of the body and is exceptionally stable if
you know that. I have _never_ tipped over in any conditions, any wave height
or pattern, unless I wanted to.

Better, I think to have a
large cockpit you can lie down in. There have been kayaks, although
homemade by boat desingers and not mass produced, in which one could
recline, even sleep in overnight as Herreshoff did on his.

Do you want to paddle or sleep? Guess what - even if you're lying inside a
modern kayak, you'd be marginally stable at best. Stability is a dynamic
situation and sitting up is _more_ stable. The kayaks that are used for
trans-oceanic paddling that allow sleeping lying down are _wide_ and
big - more like sailboat hulls if you look at one extreme - Peter Bray's
Newfoundland to GB crossing. Since I'm not into barges, I'll stick to
my sea kayak.

I'm not
sure about the V-bottom speed argument as round bottoms have least wetted
surface per pound of displacement. That's just theory and I haven't any
tank tests or computer simulations to support it.

What V-bottom speed argument? Round bottoms are faster - that's why racing
kayaks have rounded bottoms. However, the average paddler would be scared
to get in one since they're so tippy. It doesn't take much to get used to, but
you never see the racers around here go outside the breakwaters to paddle.
I don't think the racers would be too interested in sponsons when gold medals
are on the line.

Stop trying to portray necessarily limited and subjective personal
impression as fact. You seem to be arguing from a sea kayaking perspective
using production boats (which are marketed on appearance as much as
anything else).

My knowledge is based on years of paddling, study and talking with folks who
design kayaks for a living. I'm not limiting myself to production kayaks - there
are a lot of skin on frame, stitch and glue, cedar strip and other homemade
kayaks out there. I've got a partially completed one in the garage that'll be on
the water this fall. 17 foot by 18" beam, hard chine in the Greenlandic style.
You won't find production kayaks in that category.

You on the other hand have only minutes of experience in production, recreational
kayaks - not sea kayaks in ocean or Great Lakes storms. Yet you keep trying
to tell us what to do. First you spout nonsense about waxing hulls even though
waxing has no benefit and may be detrimental to performance. Then you rag
on hard chine hulls, even though you have no idea how they handle and don't
have any experience with the benefits. Then you make ridiculous statements
about what the Inuit have done, even though you have no clue what the historical
record shows.

If someone should stop posting nonsense - it's you!

What's your experince with sponsons? I've used them with good results on
two boats I've desinged and built for myself.

Look at the sponson threads in r.b.p - I've already listed my experiences.

Mike

On 31-Aug-2003, "Michael Daly" wrote:

Then kindly explain why there are plenty of examples of Inuit and Aleut craft
that _do_ have round bottoms. The Netsiligmeot kayaks were used on lakes
and rivers and were round bottomed. Aleut baidarkas and kayaks like the
King Island were round bottomed. However, the Eastern Arctic paddlers,
who specialized in sea mammal hunting in rough conditions chose the
hard chine.

An apology here - I mixed up "round bottom" and "round chine" in these
examples. The Baidarkas and such of the western Arctic are round
chined, not round bottomed. As such they don't have the stability issues
of a round bottomed kayak. However, the point I'm trying to make is that
the Inuit and Aleut can and did make a wide variety of boats and were
clearly in a position to choose their designs according to their needs,
contrary to what Willy-boy contends.

Mike