PaddleWise by thread

From: Geo. Bergeron <heritage_at_europa.com>
subject: [Paddlewise] Stability/Performance. . .
Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 02:09:43 -0700 (PDT)
At 07:07 PM 5/18/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Larry Edwards wrote:
>
>>  ...SNIP...
>>     Sure, it's fun to have a kayak that will let you cover lots of
>> miles in a day, but for most folks I recommend kayaks that have a
>> wider margin of safety than those like the Nordkapp.  (Of
>> course this also depends on the size, torso length and shoulder
>> mass of the person -- skinny kayaks can be quite stable for smaller
>> people.)
>
>If a boat has too much stability is is difficult to heel and feels
>awkward in steep waves.  If a boat has too little stability it is
>difficult to keep upright in breaking waves or chaotic seas.  The
>optimal degree of stability lies somewhere in between.  The case for
>moderation in stability is put forward quite eloquently in the most
>recent issue of Kanawa (in an article written by John Winters).  
>
>Dan Hagen


        There's a fundamental distinction between "primary" and "secondary"
stability. . . (also known as "initial and secondary stability"). I'm a big
fan of the secondary stability boats. . . the ones that are tippy ("tender")
like you don't know but which don't get rocked in the waves. I've a Current
Designs Solstice GTS which is very tender on the flat water, but just
PERSISTS in staying upright and level in heavy seas. On flat water the boat
is tippy and tender. On heavy seas the boat stays upright because it's
designed to sit on edge and level in water that's rolling in a 45 degree
angle wave. 

        Necky has an article in its sales brochure that explains all this.
In sum: Initial stability keeps the boat parallel with the water. . .
Secondary stability keeps the boat from tipping over (capsize) in heavy seas
. . . The boat becomes more stable as it is leaned on it's side. 

        These stability characteristics are essential to understanding boat
design. And the reason the "tippy" boat may be the best choice for the nasty
waters.  

        Somebody help me out here. . . John Winters understands this stuff! 

        Geo.  

***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List
Submissions:     paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net
Subscriptions:   paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net
Website:         http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/
***************************************************************************
From: John Winters <735769_at_ican.net>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Stability/Performance. . .
Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 07:52:40 -0400
George wrote;

(SNIP on stability)

>
>        Necky has an article in its sales brochure that explains all this.
>In sum: Initial stability keeps the boat parallel with the water. . .
>Secondary stability keeps the boat from tipping over (capsize) in heavy
seas
>. . . The boat becomes more stable as it is leaned on it's side.
>
>        These stability characteristics are essential to understanding
boat
>design. And the reason the "tippy" boat may be the best choice for the
nasty
>waters.
>
>        Somebody help me out here. . . John Winters understands this
stuff!


I think you guys are just trying to change the subject because you are sick
of me harping on the risk thing. :-) Fair enough, I get the message.

Stability is an extraordinarily complicated topic. There are books written
about it. It is, as Dan mentioned, possible to have a boat that is too
stable and one that is too tender.

I  like Nick's comment (I think it was Nick) that every use has an ideal
stability profile. Problems usually arise when we make absolute statements
like wide boats are better than narrow boats or whatever. There are plenty
of examples of people making hairy passages in Nordkapps to support the
positive comments about them as good sea boats. There are also plenty of
horror stories too.

Keep in mind that, by naval architecture standards, sea kayaks are not
seaworthy craft in that they are not self righting. This means that the sea
worthiness of the boat is inextricably linked to the sea worthiness of the
paddler.

Skilled paddlers have navigated open ocean in open canoes while less
skilled paddlers have drowned in kayaks bedecked with safety gear on inland
waters. One should not draw any conclusions from this other than the band
width involved.

The ideal kayak (from a stability standpoint) is the one with the greatest
area under the righting moment curve, the greatest range of stability, yet
still having a low metacentric height. Sounds impressive don't it. The fact
of the matter is that many kayaks are pretty good in this respect but no
matter how good they still need a paddler that matches the boat (or vice
versa).

The casual paddler who only paddles in protected waters is happier and
probably better off in a wide flattish boat. The experienced paddler who
takes on gnarly conditions will probably be happier in a much more tippy
boat. The long distance open water traveller will be best off in a boat
with lots of secondary stability, a slow roll, and plenty of displacement
(see ideal boat above). And so on.

 Cheers,
John Winters
Redwing Designs
Specialists in Human Powered Watercraft
http://home.ican.net/~735769/





***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List
Submissions:     paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net
Subscriptions:   paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net
Website:         http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/
***************************************************************************
From: Nick Schade <schade_at_guillemot-kayaks.com>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Stability/Performance. . .
Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 18:28:31 -0400
At 7:52 AM -0400 5/19/98, John Winters wrote:
>
>I  like Nick's comment (I think it was Nick) that every use has an ideal
>stability profile. <Snip>

I don't remember saying this, but it is a good comment so I will take
credit. I would have said it had I thought of it, and maybe I did.

Good performance is whatever you define it to be. A swim-platform is a high
performance boat if what you want to do is dive off it. It is not much good
if you want to practice your roll.



Nick Schade
Guillemot Kayaks
c/o Newfound Woodworks, RFD 2 Box 850, Bristol, NH 03222
(603) 744-6872

Schade_at_guillemot-kayaks.com
http://www.guillemot-kayaks.com/

>>>>"It's not just Art, It's a Craft!"<<<<


***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List
Submissions:     paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net
Subscriptions:   paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net
Website:         http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/
***************************************************************************
From: Brian Heath <bheath_at_televar.com>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Stability/Performance. . .
Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 22:13:31 -0700
Nick Schade wrote:

>Every use has an ideal stability profile

> Good performance is whatever you define it to be. A swim-platform is a high
> performance boat if what you want to do is dive off it. It is not much good
if you want to > practice your roll.

Good thought.  Seems like the same principle works in the discussion on
safety.  Every use -- every desire -- every recreationist has its/his/her own
safety/risk profile.  It is easy to talk absolutes in safety:  Wear a life
jacket; Learn to roll; Buy a sponson  -- or don't; Practice in certain
conditions; Take courses in this or that from certified instructors; Buy this
boat or that boat; Don't go out in this condition or that.  But it's all pretty
arrogant unless one knows the individual person.  Not just the individual's
skills and activity, but also the direction they choose to take risk in.  Some
may enjoy risking hypothermia and experience the freedom of not bundling up
(not me!).  If that is their sport -- their enjoyment -- their profile will
differ from mine.  Some may enjoy the risk of night paddling.  If their whole
reason for kayaking is to experience the sights and sounds of night, it does
little good to say that night paddling is not safe.

    And learning styles will affect a safety/risk profile.  Some people learn
best in courses.  Others learn best by slow assimilation with with a bit more
risk (in some direction) each time they do something.  Some learn best by
listening.  Some learn best by writing.  Some learn best by trying and
failing.  Some learn best while sitting -- others while standing.

    In either choosing a boat or advocating a safety principle, absolutes don't
make much sense.  Just a long way to say: "Well said, Nick.  I agree."



***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List
Submissions:     paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net
Subscriptions:   paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net
Website:         http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/
***************************************************************************
From: Gerald Foodman <klagjf_at_worldnet.att.net>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Stability/Performance. . .
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 23:13:36 -0700
>The casual paddler who only paddles in protected waters is happier and
>probably better off in a wide flattish boat. The experienced paddler who
>takes on gnarly conditions will probably be happier in a much more tippy
>boat. The long distance open water traveller will be best off in a boat
>with lots of secondary stability, a slow roll, and plenty of displacement
>(see ideal boat above). And so on.
>
> Cheers,
>John Winters


Yes, but this begs the question.  Is an experienced, competent, but perhaps
tired, paddler less likely to be knocked over in rough conditions in a
relatively stable narrow boat like a Solstice GTS or Mariner II than in a
relatively tender narrow boat like a Looksha II or Nordkapp?  Maybe not at
the ultimate expert level of skill but I think yes at the moderately expert
level of skill.

Jerry

***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List
Submissions:     paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net
Subscriptions:   paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net
Website:         http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/
***************************************************************************
From: Gerald Foodman <klagjf_at_worldnet.att.net>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Stability/Performance. . .
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 22:51:56 -0700
George wrote
>        There's a fundamental distinction between "primary" and "secondary"
>stability. . . (also known as "initial and secondary stability"). I'm a big
>fan of the secondary stability boats. . . the ones that are tippy
("tender")
>like you don't know but which don't get rocked in the waves. I've a Current
>Designs Solstice GTS which is very tender on the flat water, but just
>PERSISTS in staying upright and level in heavy seas. On flat water the boat
>is tippy and tender. On heavy seas the boat stays upright because it's
>designed to sit on edge and level in water that's rolling in a 45 degree
>angle wave.
>


I also have a Solstice GTS.  IMHO it is extremely stable on flat water for a
22" beam boat.  Not tender at all.  For tender compare it to an Arluk 1.8 or
Nordkapp or Looksha II.  However, I agree that it is also extremely
forgiving in heavy seas.

Jerry

***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List
Submissions:     paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net
Subscriptions:   paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net
Website:         http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/
***************************************************************************
From: John Winters <735769_at_ican.net>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Stability/Performance. . .
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 07:50:56 -0400
.Jerry wrote;



(SNIP)
>
>
>Yes, but this begs the question.  Is an experienced, competent, but
perhaps
>tired, paddler less likely to be knocked over in rough conditions in a
>relatively stable narrow boat like a Solstice GTS or Mariner II than in a
>relatively tender narrow boat like a Looksha II or Nordkapp?  Maybe not at
>the ultimate expert level of skill but I think yes at the moderately
expert
>level of skill.

Whether he will be capsized or not depends upon the shape of the stability
curve, the paddler's experience with the boat, and his overall ability.
That is why the nature of the boat relative to the paddler and the
paddler's objectives is so important.

It is always possible to postulate some condition where one or the other is
inadequate to the objective and that is the direct result of using boats
that are not self righting and rely upon the occupant for power, control,
and stability. For instance, a boat with high form stability is always at
greater risk of capsizing in breaking beam seas until the paddlers are
tired and then it probably doesn't make much difference what boat you have.

A tired paddler might well be better off in a more stable boat but when he
isn't tired he may be better off in a less stable boat. A boat with higher
form stability may actually cause an increased chance of sea sickness due
to its quicker motion so even though the boat might seem safer it may
contribute to creating an unsafe situation.

Postulating that one or another boat  is best for any given set of
environmental circumstances is always full of risk because the boat and
paddler are a system not separate and discreet entities.

Cheers,
John Winters
Redwing Designs
Specialists in Human Powered Watercraft
http://home.ican.net/~735769/


***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List
Submissions:     paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net
Subscriptions:   paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net
Website:         http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/
***************************************************************************
From: Jim Champoux <jim_at_sigall.com>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Stability/Performance. . .
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 10:54:19 -0500
John wrote
>
>Whether he will be capsized or not depends upon the shape of the stability
>curve, (snip.)

I have tried to understand the "stability curve" charts in Sea Kayaker that
they  print in the reviews. But maybe John or someone could explain them in
simple terms.

Jim Champoux
& Son
--------------
jim_at_sigall.com


***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List
Submissions:     paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net
Subscriptions:   paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net
Website:         http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/
***************************************************************************
From: John Winters <735769_at_ican.net>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Stability/Performance. . .
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 16:25:50 -0400
Jim wrote;

>I have tried to understand the "stability curve" charts in Sea Kayaker
that
>they  print in the reviews. But maybe John or someone could explain them
in
>simple terms.

I wrote an article on this topic for Sea Kayaker that they published some
time back. Cannot recall exactly when but the file says  I wrote it  in
June 1996.

If anyone wants I will try to dig up all the graphs and put it up on a web
page. With the graphs it would be a large file and not really suitable for
sending as an attachment.

Cheers,
John Winters
Redwing Designs
Specialists in Human Powered Watercraft
http://home.ican.net/~735769/

***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List
Submissions:     paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net
Subscriptions:   paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net
Website:         http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/
***************************************************************************

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:32:49 PDT