I’m new at sea kayaking. See my post last night titled “Greenland boats
for big guys.”

At Jon Walpole’s excellent site
http://www.cse.ogi.edu/~walpole/kayaking.html I was struck by the fact
that most of the boats in the photo gallery have upturned ends and no
rudder. These are the obvious (to me) visual attributes. I think a
couple of additional attributes are a tendency, on average, toward more
rocker and lower deck, than the American designs. I would have referred
to this as the Greenland design until Brian corrected me. Maybe the
better term is British design.

I know many of the owners of the boats in the photos are experienced sea
kayakers. Probably none are novices.

I’m wondering about the advantages and disadvantages of the British
design on average, relative to the American design. Here’s my thoughts,
organized by British attribute, gleaned from various reading. Anyone
care to correct my impressions, or elucidate further?

More rocker.

Adv. More responsive to leaning and paddle strokes.
Disadv. Less forgiving of unintentional variation in body position and
paddle stroke.
Disadv. More prone to weathercocking.

Upswept ends

Adv. Easier to roll. Boat is less stable upside down in the water.
Adv. Bow cuts through waves rather than punching through.
(Are there other advantages of an upswept stern? Cuts waves that
approach from the back?)
Disadv. Upswept stern is prone to weathercocking. Though a skeg can
largely mitigate this.

Lower deck

Adv. Allows you to lean further forward or back for easier rolls.
Adv. Boat isn’t pushed around as much by wind.
Disadv. Wet ride.
Disadv. Not as roomy in the cockpit.

--
Paul S.

"Paul Stivers" wrote in message
...
I'm new at sea kayaking. See my post last night titled "Greenland boats
for big guys."

At Jon Walpole's excellent site
http://www.cse.ogi.edu/~walpole/kayaking.html I was struck by the fact
that most of the boats in the photo gallery have upturned ends and no
rudder. These are the obvious (to me) visual attributes. I think a
couple of additional attributes are a tendency, on average, toward more
rocker and lower deck, than the American designs. I would have referred
to this as the Greenland design until Brian corrected me. Maybe the
better term is British design.

I know many of the owners of the boats in the photos are experienced sea
kayakers. Probably none are novices.

I'm wondering about the advantages and disadvantages of the British
design on average, relative to the American design. Here's my thoughts,
organized by British attribute, gleaned from various reading. Anyone
care to correct my impressions, or elucidate further?

More rocker.

Adv. More responsive to leaning and paddle strokes.
Disadv. Less forgiving of unintentional variation in body position and
paddle stroke.
Disadv. More prone to weathercocking.


Just a few thoughts on this. And these are just thoughts since, after
about 3 years of kayaking, I too consider myself a novice. I have limited
experience in test paddling boats designed for use with a skeg and have done
some reading on the subject and have read similar discussions in this and
other forums.

Weathercocking: The tendency for the boat to turn into the wind. While this
is often referred to in the negative, it is not necessarily a disadvantage.
It seems to me that it would be nearly impossible to design a boat that is
not influenced by the wind in some way. The choice, by design then, is to
design the boat so that it does tend to turn toward the wind. If your
intended course is into the wind, then this weathercocking would be an
advantage, would it not? This is where the skeg comes in. Contrary to what
many believe, the skeg is not intended to increase tracking directly. It
does so indirectly by countering the boats tendency to weathercock. As you
lower the skeg, the wind's influence on the stern of the boat is decreased.
On a well designed kayak, a fully deployed skeg, by increasing the
resistance to the wind at the stern so dramatically, would change the boats
tendency from turning into the wind to turning away from the wind. A
partially deployed skeg would induce a partial change in this tendency. So
how much skeg you deploy depends on the course you wish to paddle. No skeg
keeps you paddling into the wind, which is a good thing sometimes. Full
skeg should keep you paddling with the wind and in between should allow you
to paddle sideways to the wind or at different courses relative to the wind
depending on degree of deployment.




Upswept ends

Adv. Easier to roll. Boat is less stable upside down in the water.
Adv. Bow cuts through waves rather than punching through.
(Are there other advantages of an upswept stern? Cuts waves that
approach from the back?)
Disadv. Upswept stern is prone to weathercocking. Though a skeg can
largely mitigate this.

Well. That's the idea, I think.

Everyone who reads this, if I'm wrong about this, please fill in for me.
I'm just trying to help but I certainly don't want to be putting forward
grossly inaccurate information.

Cheers!

DV

"Dave Van" wrote:

Just a few thoughts on this. And these are just thoughts since,
after about 3 years of kayaking, I too consider myself a novice.

I appreciate your humility Dave. However, if there’s to be any
differentiation in our abilities/experience, as there should be, either I
have to change my description of my experience to something like “wouldn’t
recognize a sea kayak if it hit me in the butt,” or you have to change
yours to something like “novice-intermediate.” I’m hoping you’re willing
to change yours ;-). Perhaps I should change mine as well.

Also, I appreciate your thoughts on the skeg. I hadn’t thought of the
degree of deployment as a way to regulate the stern’s tendency to rotate to
down wind, relative to the bow’s tendency, and therefore regulate the
overall boat’s tendency toward stern-to-the-wind, bow-to-the-wind, or
neutral. Makes sense anyway.

--
Paul S.

"Paul Stivers" wrote in message
...
"Dave Van" wrote:

Just a few thoughts on this. And these are just thoughts since,
after about 3 years of kayaking, I too consider myself a novice.

I appreciate your humility Dave. However, if there's to be any
differentiation in our abilities/experience, as there should be, either I
have to change my description of my experience to something like "wouldn't
recognize a sea kayak if it hit me in the butt," or you have to change
yours to something like "novice-intermediate." I'm hoping you're willing
to change yours ;-). Perhaps I should change mine as well.


I think there's a lot to learn and always will be. I'm proud to be a novice
and so should you. It means we're not jaded.


Also, I appreciate your thoughts on the skeg. I hadn't thought of the
degree of deployment as a way to regulate the stern's tendency to rotate
to
down wind, relative to the bow's tendency, and therefore regulate the
overall boat's tendency toward stern-to-the-wind, bow-to-the-wind, or
neutral. Makes sense anyway.


I had the chance to paddle a Valley Aquila the other day in steady 15 to 20
MPH winds on a very choppy Lake Michigan. The skeg seemed to perform the
way I had anticipated. I think I may be a little light for the Aquila but
paddling with the wind with the skeg down, the kayak seemed "fairly"
cooperative in keeping on course. I think it would have done better for me
if it were loaded down a bit more. The owner of the boat was a little quiet
when I landed on the beach, forgetting to raise the skeg. That'll be
something I have to work on before I get a boat designed with a skeg.
Novices!

Have fun at the symposium. I wish I could afford the time to go.

DV

....stuff deleted
More rocker.

Adv. More responsive to leaning and paddle strokes.
Disadv. Less forgiving of unintentional variation in body position and
paddle stroke.
Disadv. More prone to weathercocking.

....more deleted

Weathercocking: The tendency for the boat to turn into the wind. While
this
is often referred to in the negative, it is not necessarily a
disadvantage.

Actually, it is. I have never, for any length of time, paddled solely into
the wind. Most conditions I've been in (up to 50 MPH winds, though generally
20 MPH or less), the wind and swell have not been perfectly aligned with
each other. Perhaps when one is out at sea and rebound waves (clapotis) are
less of a concern, this may be different. Generally, however, if you have
control of the boat, you are in a better situation than if the weather is in
control of the boat. For coastal kayaking, this means having the ability to
round a point and follow the coast rather than continue to paddle into a
headwind that will put you further out to sea to compensate for the poor
handling characteristics of the boat.

It seems to me that it would be nearly impossible to design a boat that is
not influenced by the wind in some way.

While this statement is true, having been in boats that have a very low
profile and which hug the water with such a passion that they are more
submarine than ship, I have to say that the wet ride is preferable to the
constant adjustments one must make for weather. As with any hull design,
this is a matter of trade-offs. No hull will completely windproof, but no
hull that has a high profile will be fun to paddle in difficult conditions.
Most boat designers offer a dryer ride, though many of the very long, very
narrow, British designs (VCP, Nordcapp) are designed to handle must more
difficult weather.

The choice, by design then, is to
design the boat so that it does tend to turn toward the wind. If your
intended course is into the wind, then this weathercocking would be an
advantage, would it not? This is where the skeg comes in. Contrary to
what
many believe, the skeg is not intended to increase tracking directly. It
does so indirectly by countering the boats tendency to weathercock.

....accurate statement on how skegs work deleted

Most designers add skegs and rudders because their boats are intended for
touring in moderate to calm conditions. Designs used by native tribesman had
no such design features and tended to be narrow, have hard chines, be 18+
feet long, and be very low in the water. Some had bifurcated hulls (which
seemed to keep the bow low in the water to avoid wind effects - as described
in the National Geo. presentation, "Baidarka"). None of these designs had
skegs because the hulls were designed for very harsh conditions and the skeg
would have added no performance advantage to the boat.


Upswept ends

Adv. Easier to roll. Boat is less stable upside down in the water.
Adv. Bow cuts through waves rather than punching through.
(Are there other advantages of an upswept stern? Cuts waves that
approach from the back?)
Disadv. Upswept stern is prone to weathercocking. Though a skeg can
largely mitigate this.

Well. That's the idea, I think.


The idea of the skeg? Yes. The upswept ends, however, do provide a bit of
windage to the hull. If you look closely at most of the "British designs,"
however, you will see that the upswept bow and stern is not pronounced when
viewed from in the water. The low volume of these boats means that the bow
and stern do not ride up the wave, but penetrate it (since there is a very
small air pocket in the bow, it provides very little lift). The waves flow
over the hull and those upswept ends (which seem higher than they are due to
the low deck height of the entire boat) are submerged and funciton much like
a skeg as it skewers the waves. This is a feature seen in many native
designs as well.

....stuff deleted

This is, by the way, how I understand things from what I've read and
experienced. I've only paddled a couple of these boats in fairly calm
conditions and for short periods of time. I am not kidding you about the low
volume and wet ride however. Fun, but dress for immersion as you will be wet
in these things.

Rick

At Jon Walpole’s excellent site
http://www.cse.ogi.edu/~walpole/kayaking.html I was struck by the fact
that most of the boats in the photo gallery have upturned ends and no
rudder. These are the obvious (to me) visual attributes. I think a
couple of additional attributes are a tendency, on average, toward more
rocker and lower deck, than the American designs. I would have referred
to this as the Greenland design until Brian corrected me. Maybe the
better term is British design.

British, American, Greenland, Alaskan - it's really all so much semantics.
Generically speaking most people tend to refer to kayaks with fine ends, over
hanging ends or upswept ends as a Greenland design. As for what exactly
constitutes a true Greenland or Alaskan design is something that I don't think
even the purists can agree on.
Why the group to which you refer is primarily (or exclusively) using
"Greenland" design boats without rudders is anybody's guess. In fact, if you
asked each member of the group that very question you would be likely to get a
different answer out of each one of them. I have paddled many of the same areas
portrayed on Jon Walpole's site in more Alaskan type boats - Pacific Water
Sports Seal and Mariner's Coaster, simply because that's what was available. I
had a great time!
I will go out on a limb here (no surprise there :-) and say that the
majority of boats available recreationally today seem lean heavily towards the
Greenland influence. I believe this is more a result of marketing then anything
else. That stodgy bunch of die hard traditionalists in the United Kingdom from
which we get the BCU has always favored this type of boat. I have heard it
suggested that this is the result of their closer proximity to Greenland, then
to Alaska, more then any other particular reason. Whether or not this is true I
cannot say with any certainly.
While beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I think most people will agree
that Greenland style boats look sexier then their Alaskan cousins. I also feel
that the finer ends allow for a bit smoother ride. I have to believe that more
people choose kayaks (and cars for that matter) based more on appearance then
performance. There's nothing wrong with that! Some other reasons a person might
chose a particular boat would include the price, the color (don't laugh, it's
true), their buddy uses one and likes it, their instructor uses one, some high
profile paddler endorses it, it's easier to do bracing and rolling in for
people who do not have a strong brace or roll, and every once in a long while
because of performance in the type of paddling one intends to actually do in
that boat.
Very few of us are ever actually going to paddle from California to Hawaii,
or circumnavigate New Zealand. So choosing a boat for that purpose is really
kinda pretentious and silly. You should try a number of different boats and try
to choose one that you like - for whatever reasons happen to be important to
you - and enjoy!

Scott
So.Cal.

Rick wrote:

Designs used by native tribesman had
no such design features and tended to be narrow, have hard chines, be 18+
feet long, and be very low in the water. Some had bifurcated hulls (which
seemed to keep the bow low in the water to avoid wind effects - as described
in the National Geo. presentation, "Baidarka"). None of these designs had
skegs because the hulls were designed for very harsh conditions and the skeg
would have added no performance advantage to the boat.

This is untrue. Skegs are actually very common on Greenlandic kayaks. They are
commonly either built into the hull by pulling the keel stringer into a hollow a
few feet forward of the stern, or of the strap on variety that is lashed to the
hull. I don't recall of seeing a skeg on a baidarka, but the Aleut may well have
used them, too.

--
Regards

Brian

Ki Ayker wrote:

At Jon Walpole’s excellent site
http://www.cse.ogi.edu/~walpole/kayaking.html I was struck by the fact
that most of the boats in the photo gallery have upturned ends and no
rudder. These are the obvious (to me) visual attributes. I think a
couple of additional attributes are a tendency, on average, toward more
rocker and lower deck, than the American designs. I would have referred
to this as the Greenland design until Brian corrected me. Maybe the
better term is British design.

British, American, Greenland, Alaskan - it's really all so much semantics.

Agreed and as North American manufacturers catch on that the domestic market is
hungry for higher performance boats, thes lines will continue to blur.

The only things the boats from the major British companies (VCP, NDK, P&H) really
have in common is that they are designed for rough water and built like tanks.
Although Americans seem to be obsessed with light weight, Brits want boats that are
rugged and have lots of gelcoat that can be sacrificed to their rocky coastlines.

Generically speaking most people tend to refer to kayaks with fine ends, over
hanging ends or upswept ends as a Greenland design. As for what exactly
constitutes a true Greenland or Alaskan design is something that I don't think
even the purists can agree on.

There is a pretty broad spectrum of boats that fall under the heading of Greenland
kayaks, but there are a few things that most share, hard chines, upswept ends with
substantial overhangs, low flat decks that require paddling with straight legs and
skin-on-frame construction. For the most part, they fit the paddler very closely,
with East Greenland boats being one major exception. North American boats vary even
more and run the gamut from short, wide, flat bottom and high volume (under 15' and
up to 30" wide) to extremely long, narrow, rounded hull designs. For example,
Copper Inuit boats were often 22'+ long, ~15" beam with rounded bottoms, quite
similar to modern racing boats.

Why the group to which you refer is primarily (or exclusively) using
"Greenland" design boats without rudders is anybody's guess. In fact, if you
asked each member of the group that very question you would be likely to get a
different answer out of each one of them. I have paddled many of the same areas
portrayed on Jon Walpole's site in more Alaskan type boats - Pacific Water
Sports Seal and Mariner's Coaster, simply because that's what was available. I
had a great time!

I don't know his group, but what I've seen locally is that as paddlers progress in
the skill level and begin seeking out bigger water and more challenging conditions,
they naturally tend to gravitate toward boats that are proven performers in such
environments. British boats may not necessarily be the best, but they have the
reputation for being good rough water boats.

I will go out on a limb here (no surprise there :-) and say that the
majority of boats available recreationally today seem lean heavily towards the
Greenland influence.

Most people would probably think of a Greenland-esque shape when you mention the
word "kayak".

I believe this is more a result of marketing then anything else.

Quite possibly.

That stodgy bunch of die hard traditionalists in the United Kingdom from
which we get the BCU has always favored this type of boat. I have heard it
suggested that this is the result of their closer proximity to Greenland, then
to Alaska, more then any other particular reason. Whether or not this is true I
cannot say with any certainly.

Again, there's not that much Greenland influence in most British boats. Upturned
ends do not make a boat "Greenlandic".

While beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I think most people will agree
that Greenland style boats look sexier then their Alaskan cousins.

I agree, though there are some really striking baidarka designs, too.

I also feel that the finer ends allow for a bit smoother ride.

In some cases, yes, but baidarkas were designed to be somewhat flexible, which
allows them to follow wave contours to some degree. One thing that you do get with
true Greenland designs is a very wet ride, but I thinks it's a fair trade off for
the performance advantages. Contrary to the preaching of Derek Hutchinson, kayaking
is a WET sport, especially for people who prefer low volume, true Greenland style
boats and the paddling techniques that go with them.

I have to believe that more
people choose kayaks (and cars for that matter) based more on appearance then
performance. There's nothing wrong with that!

Sure.

Some other reasons a person might
chose a particular boat would include the price, the color (don't laugh, it's
true), their buddy uses one and likes it, their instructor uses one, some high
profile paddler endorses it, it's easier to do bracing and rolling in for
people who do not have a strong brace or roll, and every once in a long while
because of performance in the type of paddling one intends to actually do in
that boat.

Good assessment. For an intitial kayak purchase, most people don't have much to go
on. That's why one's first boat is rarely one's last.

Very few of us are ever actually going to paddle from California to Hawaii,
or circumnavigate New Zealand. So choosing a boat for that purpose is really
kinda pretentious and silly. You should try a number of different boats and try
to choose one that you like - for whatever reasons happen to be important to
you - and enjoy!

It seems to me that the overwhelming majority of paddlers tend to choose boats that
are much too big for them. Considering that most of us are essentially "day
paddlers", the extra volume is nothing but a liability. A common tendency is for
people to gravitate toward lower volume boats as they become more experienced and
skilled.

--
Regards

Brian

There is a pretty broad spectrum of boats that fall under the heading of
Greenland
kayaks, but there are a few things that most share, hard chines, upswept ends
with substantial overhangs, low flat decks that require paddling with straight
legs and
skin-on-frame construction. For the most part, they fit the paddler very
closely,
with East Greenland boats being one major exception. North American boats vary
even
more

Again, there's not that much Greenland influence in most British
boats.Upturned
ends do not make a boat "Greenlandic".


Simply for the sake of discussion I thought it might be fun to explore this
a bit further. I have never seen any actual definitions as to what exactly
makes one boat a Greenland style and what makes another an Alaskan style. So
for most of us I think when we talk about such design traits we are speaking in
fairly broad generalizations.
As far as the generalizations go, Greenland boats tend to have finer ends,
upswept ends, substantial overhangs, lower decks resulting in lower volume
boats, hard chines with "V" bottoms and tiny little cockpits. The Alaskan, or
North American designs lean towards plumb more blunt ends, higher decks
resulting in higher volume boats, multi chine more rounded hulls and larger
roomier cockpits.
As I stated earlier, these are fairly gross generalizations which leave much
room for nit picking. What actually makes a boat lean more towards a Greenland
style or a North American one can be a matter of subjective degree. Technically
speaking it would not be incorrect to call a baidarka built by a paddling
enthusiast who lives in Greenland a "Greenland" boat. However, when we refer to
such boats we are generally speaking of the influence of their design rather
then where they were actually constructed.
I personally consider most British boats to have a Greenland influence to
them. British boats generally have the fine upturned ends, lower volume, "V"ed
hull and tiny cockpits which typify the Greenland design. However, like Brian
said, as time goes by the lines have a tendency to become increasingly blurred.
Frankly, while I think such discussions are fun and interesting, I don't
really believe that being able to categorize modern recreational kayaks is all
that important. Attempting to understand the various design elements involved,
on the other hand, can be very useful to today's paddling enthusiasts.

Scott
So.Cal.

Brian,

The greenlanders did, according to my references, use skegs on some designs.
I stand corrected. The references I've checked on baidarkas don't mention
same. Most of the Aleuts and greenlanders were sewn into their boats, which
meant landing on beaches where such devices would be easily damaged is left
deployed. I would assume that repairing/replacing these was a pretty common
occurance.

Rick

"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
...


Rick wrote:

Designs used by native tribesman had
no such design features and tended to be narrow, have hard chines, be
18+
feet long, and be very low in the water. Some had bifurcated hulls
(which
seemed to keep the bow low in the water to avoid wind effects - as
described
in the National Geo. presentation, "Baidarka"). None of these designs
had
skegs because the hulls were designed for very harsh conditions and the
skeg
would have added no performance advantage to the boat.

This is untrue. Skegs are actually very common on Greenlandic kayaks. They
are
commonly either built into the hull by pulling the keel stringer into a
hollow a
few feet forward of the stern, or of the strap on variety that is lashed
to the
hull. I don't recall of seeing a skeg on a baidarka, but the Aleut may
well have
used them, too.

--
Regards

Brian