Re: [Paddlewise] Holding On

John Winters wrote:

> There will always be a use for such things as sponsons. It is up to the
> individual to decide if there is a  need and to recognize any shortcomings
> the equipment may have.
> 
> No doubt sponsons could be improved. Nothing is perfect. One could also
> take another approach. Why not make sponsons redundant? Why not design
> boats with enough stability to allow wet re-entry without having to use
> sponsons?

How would this make sponsons redundant?  Forgive me if I am a bit slow,
but I really do not understand your point.  Of course one could design a
boat which, due to it's substantial beam, always has the same stability
as Boat X with sponsons deployed.  But the problem with such an approach
is that you cannot reduce the beam for those times when a less beamy
boat is desired.  With sponsons you can increase the beam *temporarily*
for the purpose of taking a crap or a nap (or whatever), and then reduce
the beam once it is time to paddle. How do you intend to achieve this if
the boat is beamy to begin with?  Personally, I do not like the feel of
beamy boats, but I do like the option of temporarily increasing the
beam.  As always, this is just my humble opinion.  

Dan Hagen
Bellingham, Washington
***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List
Submissions:     paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net
Subscriptions:   paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net
***************************************************************************