Wayne wrote; (SNIP) > The problem is, once you are out of the boat and in the water that boat > is a very potentially lethal weapon. The mass of the boat means that it > catches a lot of water. Also, the lengths of most kayaks mean that once > you are out of the kayak, large sections of the boat (especially at the > stern and the bow) are not in the water or on the waves at the same > time. It can nearly rip your fingers off as the wave catches it or the > bow or stern rocket up or down. Often I can relate it to what I think > it must be like getting back onto a very uncooperative bucking bronco. > I do not come out of my boat very often and if it does occur, it usually > happens in over two meter surf after a day of playing around when I > should have already gone home. I have had some pretty serious bruising > of my fingers come out of gripping those deck lines and that is holding > onto the kayak amidships where there is less dramatic movement than at > the stern or the bow!! (SNIP) What Wayne is talking about here is worth considering. For instance, if kayak "A" requires additional stability for re-entry (either with a paddle float, sponsons or whatever) and the addition of the device makes the boat safer by allowing re-entry then why wouldn't a boat that already has that stability designed into it be much better? I think we would all agree that the more time one spends in the water and the more one has to do while immersed the greater our risk of being separated from the boat. Therefor it is logical to argue that, not only should a boat have sufficient stability for re-entry stability but, that stability should not be dependent upon any device that must be installed after capsize. certainly for handicapped paddlers sponsons would be a poor solution to the problem since the handicapped person would be forced to either paddle all the time with the sponsons (in which case he might as well have a properly designed boat) or he would be forced to manage installing them after the fact when, as Wayne points out, success is not guaranteed. Cheers John Winters Redwing Designs Specialists in Human Powered Watercraft http://home.ican.net/~735769/ t *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net ***************************************************************************
This problem of having to handle a wild or difficult to restrain Kayak in such waters, described by Wayne, leave me somewhat chilled out by the idea of going through an additional fight to intall straps and proper positoning of a set of sponsons. Moreover having to inflate them would be challenging to my breath. Accepting the cold plus having to blow something up while dealing with a bucking kayak would be a bit much. I perceive that manually inflated sponsons would be suitable only for smooth or calm waters and what is needed is a CO-2 cartridge inflatable system, not a manuel inflatable one, for situations where there is a severe wave chop. Such a design would likewise get rid of the setup inconvenience of fastening straps and their associated drag. Why can't sponsons be merely attatched on the sides or edge of the gunwales in reserve for emergencies. Would you not think that this would be better? Would this not make sponsons more desirable and functional since it would be easier to initiate their deployment much the same as a scuba divers life vest? I don't know. If one is in the business of manufacturing sponsons perhaps a little more Research and Development could be brought to bear on the design. The way they are presently designed by Ingram suggests they are certainly not the panacea he makes them out to be. I would think there exists enough talent among this list of subscribers to solve the problem. Gee, you might even be able to put Ingram out of business with a superior design. The ultimate question to be answered, however, remains: is there really a need for them? Regards, Philip ------------------------------------------------------------------------ John Winters wrote: > I think we would all agree that the more time one spends in the water and > the more one has to do while immersed the greater our risk of being > separated from the boat. Therefor it is logical to argue that, not only > should a boat have sufficient stability for re-entry stability but, that > stability should not be dependent upon any device that must be installed > after capsize. > > certainly for handicapped paddlers sponsons would be a poor solution to > the problem since the handicapped person would be forced to either paddle > all the time with the sponsons (in which case he might as well have a > properly designed boat) or he would be forced to manage installing them > after the fact when, as Wayne points out, success is not guaranteed. > *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:32:46 PDT