Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old September 14th 06, 01:52 PM posted to rec.boats.paddle.touring
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 235
Default 17 vs 19 , Lake Huron

Drew Cutter wrote:
I'm looking to do some paddle (sea kayak) on lake Huron. For 3-5 days
worth of camping. Should i buy a 17 foot (overnight kayak) or go for
expedition size (19') kayak ?


Expedition boats are good for one thing, expeditions. Their length and
high volume tends to make for an ill-handling boat when they're paddled
without a load of gear inside. They're also more prone to wind-related
control issues. IMO, you should avoid buying one unless you plan to do
mainly long trips.

A 17' boat has considerably higher capacity than the largest backpack,
so it can easily handle the gear and supplies necessary for a week or
more, especially since you'll have access to fresh water and won't need
to carry much (get a GOOD water filter). You'll also find it to be far
more useful for general paddling.

  #2   Report Post  
Old September 14th 06, 05:09 PM posted to rec.boats.paddle.touring
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 16
Default Weight ballast for HV boats; Was: 17 vs 19 , Lake Huron


"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
Drew Cutter wrote:
I'm looking to do some paddle (sea kayak) on lake Huron. For 3-5 days
worth of camping. Should i buy a 17 foot (overnight kayak) or go for
expedition size (19') kayak ?


Expedition boats are good for one thing, expeditions. Their length and
high volume tends to make for an ill-handling boat when they're paddled
without a load of gear inside.


I have a 17.5 Eddyline Nighthawk, which is a high-volume expedition boat.
And even though it does handle better loaded I am not dissatisfied with it's
handling while empty either. I live in the SF Bay area so have used it
under windy conditions, though I do have to drop the skeg down in those
conditions.

But I was wondering what people do to compensate for that when they don't
really need any gear, such as just an exercise paddle. It would have to be
something that was easy and quick to load and unload as keeping the boat
loaded is impractical for lifting it on and off the car, and I don't want to
spend a lot of time packing the boat with stuff I don't need other then for
ballast. It would also have to be something that didn't shift around and
screw up the balance. I've thought off (but have yet to try) using adhesive
Velcro strips inside the front and rear compartments to hold ankle weights
in place, it wouldn't be a great expense to try as I already have the
weights for PT. Now that I read what I have written it sounds a little
silly but...

--
-Don
Ever had one of those days where you just felt like:
http://cosmoslair.com/BadDay.html ?
(Eating the elephant outside the box, one paradigm at a time)


  #3   Report Post  
Old September 14th 06, 05:48 PM posted to rec.boats.paddle.touring
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 159
Default Weight ballast for HV boats; Was: 17 vs 19 , Lake Huron

Don Freeman wrote:

But I was wondering what people do to compensate for that when they don't
really need any gear, such as just an exercise paddle.


I carry so much junk on a day paddle (1st aid kit, lunch, odds and ends) that I
have just enough ballast to make a difference. Since I keep all my basic
paddling gear in a mesh bag, just throwing that in adds several pounds.

A friend has glued some straps (D rings and webbing with side-release buckles)
to hold down some ballast. He uses a sand filled bottle (old four liter
windshield washer fluid) as ballast. He finds that in the day hatch is just right.

If you don't want to carry the weight around, taking empty bottles and filling
them with water at the launch makes for a reasonable ballast. It's a good idea
to have something to hold them in place in the kayak so they don't shift under way.

Mike
  #4   Report Post  
Old September 14th 06, 06:05 PM posted to rec.boats.paddle.touring
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 16
Default Weight ballast for HV boats; Was: 17 vs 19 , Lake Huron


"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
Don Freeman wrote:

But I was wondering what people do to compensate for that when they don't
really need any gear, such as just an exercise paddle.


If you don't want to carry the weight around, taking empty bottles and
filling them with water at the launch makes for a reasonable ballast.
It's a good idea to have something to hold them in place in the kayak so
they don't shift under way.


I've got a large dry bag that would work perfectly (I bought it back before
I discovered that several small bags were better then one big one), it
shouldn't shift around too much but it can be easily secured (I figure right
behind the rear bulkhead would be best) if it does. Thanks for the idea.

-Don


  #5   Report Post  
Old September 15th 06, 01:02 PM posted to rec.boats.paddle.touring
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 235
Default Weight ballast for HV boats; Was: 17 vs 19 , Lake Huron

Don Freeman wrote:
"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
Drew Cutter wrote:
I'm looking to do some paddle (sea kayak) on lake Huron. For 3-5 days
worth of camping. Should i buy a 17 foot (overnight kayak) or go for
expedition size (19') kayak ?

Expedition boats are good for one thing, expeditions. Their length and
high volume tends to make for an ill-handling boat when they're paddled
without a load of gear inside.


I have a 17.5 Eddyline Nighthawk, which is a high-volume expedition boat.
And even though it does handle better loaded I am not dissatisfied with it's
handling while empty either. I live in the SF Bay area so have used it
under windy conditions, though I do have to drop the skeg down in those
conditions.


Although the Nighthawk 17.5 is a boat designed for paddlers that "shop
at big and tall shops" according to the Eddyline site, I wouldn't put it
in the expedition boat class. It's designed as a touring boat for bigger
people. If you don't have any handling problems with it when it's just
carrying your day gear, enjoy it and don't worry about ballast. Since it
doesn't have a day hatch, you may want to use a float bag in the stern
compartment to keep your day gear positioned as close the to the rear
bulkhead as possible and keep it from shifting.



  #6   Report Post  
Old September 15th 06, 04:59 PM posted to rec.boats.paddle.touring
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 16
Default Weight ballast for HV boats; Was: 17 vs 19 , Lake Huron


"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
Don Freeman wrote:
"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
Drew Cutter wrote:
I'm looking to do some paddle (sea kayak) on lake Huron. For 3-5 days
worth of camping. Should i buy a 17 foot (overnight kayak) or go for
expedition size (19') kayak ?
Expedition boats are good for one thing, expeditions. Their length and
high volume tends to make for an ill-handling boat when they're paddled
without a load of gear inside.


I have a 17.5 Eddyline Nighthawk, which is a high-volume expedition boat.
And even though it does handle better loaded I am not dissatisfied with
it's handling while empty either. I live in the SF Bay area so have used
it under windy conditions, though I do have to drop the skeg down in
those conditions.


Although the Nighthawk 17.5 is a boat designed for paddlers that "shop at
big and tall shops" according to the Eddyline site, I wouldn't put it in
the expedition boat class.


How would you defined expedition class then? I can easily pack enough gear
for two (probably more) weeks of kayaking/camping. It is well constructed
for the long haul, and it can handle pretty much all conditions that a sea
kayak is meant to handle. I am curious as to what other criteria are
involved?

As far as the "Big and Tall" part, all I can say is that I am not tall G.

--
-Don
Ever had one of those days where you just felt like:
http://cosmoslair.com/BadDay.html ?
(Eating the elephant outside the box, one paradigm at a time)


  #7   Report Post  
Old September 15th 06, 10:33 PM posted to rec.boats.paddle.touring
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 235
Default Weight ballast for HV boats; Was: 17 vs 19 , Lake Huron

Don Freeman wrote:
"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
Don Freeman wrote:
"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
Drew Cutter wrote:
I'm looking to do some paddle (sea kayak) on lake Huron. For 3-5 days
worth of camping. Should i buy a 17 foot (overnight kayak) or go for
expedition size (19') kayak ?
Expedition boats are good for one thing, expeditions. Their length and
high volume tends to make for an ill-handling boat when they're paddled
without a load of gear inside.
I have a 17.5 Eddyline Nighthawk, which is a high-volume expedition boat.
And even though it does handle better loaded I am not dissatisfied with
it's handling while empty either. I live in the SF Bay area so have used
it under windy conditions, though I do have to drop the skeg down in
those conditions.

Although the Nighthawk 17.5 is a boat designed for paddlers that "shop at
big and tall shops" according to the Eddyline site, I wouldn't put it in
the expedition boat class.


How would you defined expedition class then? I can easily pack enough gear
for two (probably more) weeks of kayaking/camping. It is well constructed
for the long haul, and it can handle pretty much all conditions that a sea
kayak is meant to handle. I am curious as to what other criteria are
involved?


Please don't take my comments the wrong way, I wasn't insinuating that
it's not a very capable boat or besmirching Eddline's stellar reputation
for quality. Expedition boats are real battleships, typically over 18'
long with very high volume. They're meant for extended voyages with a
heavy gear load. OTOH, many major expeditions have been done with much
smaller boats, like the VCP Nordkapp and the NDK Explorer, so defining
the category is somewhat arbitrary. I guess that any boat that one uses
on an expedition is technically an "expedition boat", but Drew asked if
he should get a 19' boat or a 17' boat, so he's apparently thinking in
the same terms I am.

As far as the "Big and Tall" part, all I can say is that I am not tall G.


Then I would assume that you probably don't need ballast, either. ;-)
  #8   Report Post  
Old September 16th 06, 12:00 AM posted to rec.boats.paddle.touring
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 16
Default Weight ballast for HV boats; Was: 17 vs 19 , Lake Huron


"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message
news:[email protected]

Please don't take my comments the wrong way,


Oh not at all, I was wondering if there was some sort of objective
definition but you stated it well with the "arbitray" qualification. When I
first researched the boat it was defined by one site as an expedition boat
(I believe it was Eddyline's) and it carrys more gear then some of the 19
footers that I looked at. Though one definition states that expedition
boats should be slender (which the 17' Nighthawk isn't) for more efficient
(and less tiring on long trips) paddling. The longest I've been out on it
was 5 days of boat-in-only camping and had pretty much all the comforts I
needed and a lot more food, but I certainly wasn't paddling for 5 days
straight either.

Then I would assume that you probably don't need ballast, either. ;-)


Hah! The way I've been going lately I may start needing more floatation.
Maybe I should have been paddling for all those 5 days.

--
-Don
Ever had one of those days where you just felt like:
http://cosmoslair.com/BadDay.html ?
(Eating the elephant outside the box, one paradigm at a time)





Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
17 vs 19 , Lake Huron Steve Cramer Touring 0 September 13th 06 08:36 PM
Mr Long.. read this one rhys Cruising 2 January 2nd 05 10:18 PM
Puts Lake Superior to shame Capt. Neal® ASA 5 December 16th 04 06:25 PM
Bad News for Lake Erie: From the Toledo Blade RGrew176 General 4 September 27th 03 03:10 PM
The 4th and boating.Lake Oroville. basskisser General 9 July 14th 03 06:24 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:32 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2020 BoatBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Boats"

 

Copyright © 2017