If you add first aid and trip planning skills to the list below, and clarify that the boat handling skills are comfortably demonstrated in 2 - 4 foot seas, you have described below the BCU 4 star level. the bottom line on 4 star certification is that the paddler "is not a liability on an open ocean journey" in 15 - 20 knot winds. i very much disagree that the multiple levels are too complicated. 1 star is a participation/encouragement award. 2 star is basic skill level in flat water, 3 star is confident skill level in flat water and basic seamanship, 4 star is confident skill level in rougher water and solid seamanship, 5 star is leadership seamanship and skill level in more extreme conditions. This creates a ladder of achievement upon which paddlers/students can progress, which is tangible enough that people feel some satisfaction as they work their way through the awards, and equally important, provides a modicum of consistency/standards, so that if someone comes to me and says " i am a # star paddler", i know what sort of conditions we can reasonably go out in. also, i have been told that the bcu is also hard at work on creating a greenland technique module, which they hope to have sorted out by next summer. regards, george ruta northcountry kayak 518-677-3040 (coach level 2, working on level 3) In a message dated 98-10-02 21:01:34 EDT, kwhilden_at_u.washington.edu writes: << Julio, I think we pretty much agree on the level of relevance of the ACA. I personally would go so far as to give a succint summary of their sea kayaking certification... It's too wimpy. The BCU is much better as far as technical skills go, but again there are problems. They are too stuffy. Things like never paddling alone or completely ignoring greenland paddles bother me. I wonder what the good people on this list would come up with if we decided to start our own certification program. Perhaps I'll get the ball rolling... I think the the five star rating of the BCU is too complicated, and leaves too much room for mediocrity at the lower levels. I would propose having only a single rating, and then add specialized components as needed. For instance, Joe Seakayaker has an official Paddlewise certification of competency with specialty in greenland paddles and paddling open coast w/ surf. Or something like that. The basic certification would be much more comprehensive of the basic skills. I'll list a few, and then perhaps others could add more. - Basic paddle strokes: Forward, sweeps, rudders, duffek - Basic skills: edge control, edged turns, sculling, high and low brace - basic rescues: Wet-exit, assisted (several kinds), solo w/ paddle float - basic eskimo roll: I would go so far as to require a roll for certification, others might balk so much that I might have to compromise. But we should at least give the message that this is the best kind of rescue, period, and that it is not really that hard to learn. - basic navigation skills: Read a chart, compass, avoid shipping lanes, - basic tide and current awareness - basic hypothermia awareness - basic boat packing skills Well, that's not a bad start for the BASIC certification. The idea here is to make it somewhat difficult, instead of giving one away with every full tank of gas. Another idea is to keep it simple -- one level is all that is needed to make sure everyone is a competent kayaker for the level of paddling that majority of sea kayakers typically attempt. This would really increase safety in general. Then there are the specialized ratings that can be used for aspects of sea kayaking that the majority of the sea kayaking public would not typically attempt, such as rock gardening, open coast paddling, tide rip playing, greenland paddle technique, surfing, whitewater rivers, etc... There are plenty of people who do want to learn these things, and it would be good address each one directly and specifically, because they are all quite dangerous in different ways. (greenland paddles ARE dangerously fun...) Well, what do you think... can we run with this and turn it into something substantial? This is a wonderful email list, with many many outstanding contributors. I don't see why we couldn't formalize a certification program, even if it just goes on the web page for the general public to read. let's be the Linux of sea kayaking. :) ___________________ / Kevin Whilden \ >> *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
Hey all, I've been busy this weekend, and I expect to be quite busy until I finish a little matter of a MS in periglacial geomorphology. (I wish I could get a PhD in kayaking...) So I apologize for dropping that good idea before without any real intention of carrying it through to fruition. But maybe some others would like to run with it. Now for a couple of comments regarding the differences between the BCU levels, and my idea of a single rating with a few very specialized add-ons. First let me say that I think the BCU system is very thourough and produces very competent paddlers -- anyone who goes through all of the levels can both paddle well and has enough experience to probably make good judgements in unexpected situations. However I really do not think it the most effective method for training the average american kayaker. The five star system is too lenient on mediocrity. As an example the Kayak Academy teaches students the rough equivalent of 3 stars in one weekend, and the rough equivalent 5 star skills in a single five day training camp. This is a testament to George Gronseth's incredible skill as an instructor and to his method of presenting the various skills and mental knowledge. So it is possible to reach my idea of a single comprehensive 4 star equivalent rating very quickly. A single comprehensive rating is a very good thing because American are instant gratification kind of people in general. We want to go to REI, throw our platinum visa card on the counter and say "I'll take one of those kayaks with the sky blue deck, built in GPS, and coffee cup holder." Then we load the boat onto our SUV (next to the mountain bikes, skis, and rocket box) and attempt to paddle the up the Inside Passage with no training whatsoever. Okay, so I exagerrate to make the point that having to take more than one different exam to reach what I would consider a MINIMUM competency level would not work for a significant portion of the American public. Now a word about minimum competency mentioned above. Most of the people I know got into sea kayaking to go on long, multi-day trips, not to just paddle on calm water and lakes. 2-4 foot seas and 15-20 knot winds can be encountered pretty much anytime on the seas. In the San Juan Islands and the Strait of Juan de Fuca, there are hardly ever winds forecasted less than 15 knots, and this means that two foot seas are commonplace. I think these conditions are common enough that any paddler less than four star rating stands a fairly good chance to have to paddle in four star conditions on a multi-day trip. A good friend of mine had exactly that problem recently on trip with his girlfriend. She was very inexperienced (felt she didn't need experience in fact), and her rudder broke in a four foot following sea. All turned out well, and it was a bit more complicated than this, so don't start criticising this nugget of info, but I think it goes to show what the general American public needs: A certification program that provides a minimum level of competency in rough water in a short amount of time for a generally impatient public. So these are part of my rationale for a kind of certification concept that would do the most good in this country. In an ideal world, the BCU system and a system similar to mine would be widespread in place side by side to make sure that ALL kayakers get an approriate pathway to solid skills and seamanship. Then we will never have to publish a sequel to Deep Trouble. Again, I would love to hear comments and criticism, and if anyone wants to take on this project, it would make my week. Cheers, Kevin On Sat, 3 Oct 1998 Geruta_at_aol.com wrote: > If you add first aid and trip planning skills to the list below, and clarify > that the boat handling skills are comfortably demonstrated in 2 - 4 foot seas, > you have described below the BCU 4 star level. the bottom line on 4 star > certification is that the paddler "is not a liability on an open ocean > journey" in 15 - 20 knot winds. > > i very much disagree that the multiple levels are too complicated. 1 star is a > participation/encouragement award. 2 star is basic skill level in flat water, > 3 star is confident skill level in flat water and basic seamanship, 4 star is > confident skill level in rougher water and solid seamanship, 5 star is > leadership seamanship and skill level in more extreme conditions. This creates > a ladder of achievement upon which paddlers/students can progress, which is > tangible enough that people feel some satisfaction as they work their way > through the awards, and equally important, provides a modicum of > consistency/standards, so that if someone comes to me and says " i am a # star > paddler", i know what sort of conditions we can reasonably go out in. > > also, i have been told that the bcu is also hard at work on creating a > greenland technique module, which they hope to have sorted out by next summer. > > regards, > george ruta > northcountry kayak > 518-677-3040 > (coach level 2, working on level 3) > > In a message dated 98-10-02 21:01:34 EDT, kwhilden_at_u.washington.edu writes: > > << Julio, > I think we pretty much agree on the level of relevance of the ACA. I > personally would go so far as to give a succint summary of their sea > kayaking certification... > > It's too wimpy. > > The BCU is much better as far as technical skills go, but again there are > problems. They are too stuffy. Things like never paddling alone or > completely ignoring greenland paddles bother me. > > I wonder what the good people on this list would come up with if we > decided to start our own certification program. > > Perhaps I'll get the ball rolling... > > I think the the five star rating of the BCU is too complicated, and leaves > too much room for mediocrity at the lower levels. I would propose having > only a single rating, and then add specialized components as needed. > > For instance, Joe Seakayaker has an official Paddlewise certification of > competency with specialty in greenland paddles and paddling open coast w/ > surf. Or something like that. > > The basic certification would be much more comprehensive of the basic > skills. I'll list a few, and then perhaps others could add more. > - Basic paddle strokes: Forward, sweeps, rudders, duffek > - Basic skills: edge control, edged turns, sculling, high and low brace > - basic rescues: Wet-exit, assisted (several kinds), solo w/ paddle float > - basic eskimo roll: I would go so far as to require a roll for > certification, others might balk so much that I might have to compromise. > But we should at least give the message that this is the best kind of > rescue, period, and that it is not really that hard to learn. > - basic navigation skills: Read a chart, compass, avoid shipping lanes, > - basic tide and current awareness > - basic hypothermia awareness > - basic boat packing skills > > Well, that's not a bad start for the BASIC certification. The idea here is > to make it somewhat difficult, instead of giving one away with every full > tank of gas. Another idea is to keep it simple -- one level is all that is > needed to make sure everyone is a competent kayaker for the level of > paddling that majority of sea kayakers typically attempt. This would > really increase safety in general. Then there are the specialized > ratings that can be used for aspects of sea kayaking that the majority of > the sea kayaking public would not typically attempt, such as rock > gardening, open coast paddling, tide rip playing, greenland paddle > technique, surfing, whitewater rivers, etc... There are plenty of people > who do want to learn these things, and it would be good address each one > directly and specifically, because they are all quite dangerous in > different ways. (greenland paddles ARE dangerously fun...) > > Well, what do you think... can we run with this and turn it into something > substantial? This is a wonderful email list, with many many outstanding > contributors. I don't see why we couldn't formalize a certification > program, even if it just goes on the web page for the general public to > read. let's be the Linux of sea kayaking. :) > ___________________ > / Kevin Whilden \ >> > *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
Kevin wrote; (Large SNIP) >She was very inexperienced >(felt she didn't need experience in fact), and her rudder broke in a four >foot following sea. All turned out well, and it was a bit more complicated >than this, so don't start criticising this nugget of info, but I think it >goes to show what the general American public needs: A certification >program that provides a minimum level of competency in rough water in a >short amount of time for a generally impatient public. Is this not a problem with certification - that having gotten it that one will be competent and safe in stressful conditions? Is it appropriate to cater to the general public's need for instant gratification? Can good judgement be taught so quickly without a range of experience to support that judgement? Does being able to demonstrate skills mean one is ready for any challenge? While the BCU requirement of having done a long trip is useful, there are long trips and there are long trips. One can paddle for years and never once experience one of those gut wrenching situations that tell you exactly how little you know or can do. My preference would be for a system that simply says that one has demonstrated a skill but not one that says that having demonstrated that skill that one is ready for a specific type of paddling experience. (either implied or expressed). The BCU method implies that one is capable of long trips simply because one has done one. Is that valid? I wonder if the implied message that one is a "kayaker" after completing one of these courses is not a bit dangerous. On another note, Ari mentioned capsizing his Nordkapp while learning to paddle it. I find it interesting that capsizing seems to be an integral part in learning how to paddle a boat that is reputed to be so seaworthy. It would be interesting to start another thread that defines what characteristics a high performance sea kayak would possess. I wonder if ease of capsize is one of them and wonder if the rest cannot be achieved with more stable boats. 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/ ***************************************************************************
John Winters wrote: > Is this not a problem with certification - that having gotten it that one > will be competent and safe in stressful conditions? Is it appropriate to > cater to the general public's need for instant gratification? Can good > judgement be taught so quickly without a range of experience to support > that judgement? > > Does being able to demonstrate skills mean one is ready for any challenge? You are implying the issue of judgment and it is hard to certify judgment. Which brings up a related question: do any of the certification programs include creating problem solving scenarios that may help promote better judgment? When LL Bean ran its first advanced seakayaking weekend back in 1989 (it was full of a lot of hotshots who complained it wasn't really advanced), several hours were devoted to setting a scenario involving a proposed trip. It was to help train and guage leadership. You were given a rundown on the paddlers scheduled to go on the weekend trip. Were given some weather reports, including wind, etc. A destination across some open water was indicated along with a chart. And questions were posed such as should you take the trip at all, what course would offer the best protection, what weather changes would trigger a change in plans to cut the trip short, etc. Its value was that it got you to think of the variables AND most importantly pointed to the possiblility of not going ahead with the trip at all. I don't do the problem justice here because it was quite detailed with near bios of the paddling experience of the individuals, a real chart, real sounding weather reports, etc. The problem was several pages long and we spent, as I said, several hours with it in small groups. The variables (and hints of unknowns) were such that there were no facile or "correct" answers. Again, my question: do any of the certification programs have something like that in their course and practice materials? You could learn a lot about an individual and their thinking with something like it. And anyone taking such a course would at least be exposed to the complexities of dealing with real life paddling situations. Stopping to think a bit helps lead to good judgment. ralph diaz (who has made many a bonehead judgment but has the good sense to learn from them) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Ralph Diaz . . . Folding Kayaker newsletter PO Box 0754, New York, NY 10024 Tel: 212-724-5069; E-mail: rdiaz_at_ix.netcom.com "Where's your sea kayak?"----"It's in the bag." ----------------------------------------------------------------------- *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
Ralph wrote; (SNIP) >Again, my question: do any of the certification programs have something >like that in their course and practice materials? You could learn a lot >about an individual and their thinking with something like it. And >anyone taking such a course would at least be exposed to the >complexities of dealing with real life paddling situations. Stopping to >think a bit helps lead to good judgment. First aid programs use simulated disasters etc. for training purposes. Sounds like a good idea to me. Cannot remember such a thing in a paddling course but my memory isn't what it used to be. 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/ ***************************************************************************
On Tue, 6 Oct 1998, John Winters wrote: > It would be interesting to start another thread that defines what > characteristics a high performance sea kayak would possess. I wonder if > ease of capsize is one of them and wonder if the rest cannot be achieved > with more stable boats. Ok, I'll bite on this one. There are two kinds of high performance sea kayaks in my view: First, the kind that already exists, with characteristics in order of importance. 1. Does not weathercock 2. High secondary stability, low initial stability 3. turns easily when edged 4. tracks well when not edged 5. Carves turns when edged without any input from paddle strokes 6. Easily controllable on a wave (most sea kayaks are not good at this, so it is a low priority relatively 7. Solid footbracing and thigh bracing. 8. Holds bulky items easily such as my dutch oven and Djembe. 9. no rudder or skeg required for the above, because these items can break or get jammed, can take up room in the holds (e.g. skegs). I would imagine the ideal length here would be around 16-17'. Also note that rollability is not an issue for me. My roll is good enough that I don't worry about missing it. I always wear proper thermal protection, often to the point of a fully sealed drysuit, so getting wet is no big deal. I have not rolled unintentionally in the ocean in a long long while, which I find somewhat depressing -- next solstice, I might take a trip out to Boiling Reef... :) As far John's ease of capsize question regarding more stable boats, do you mean the boat has relatively more initial, or more secondary stability? If the former, I would say that in really rough water, a higher initial stability boat results in a boat more likely to capsize -- initial stability tends to keep the boat parallel to the local water surface regardless of whether that surface is horizontal or vertical. If the latter, then all high performance boats in my opinion already have high secondary stability. These boats also have low initial stability because many of the performance characteristics (edged turns, etc...) require a boat that is easy to put on edge (low initial) and hard to fully capsize (high secondary). Now the kind of sea kayak that doesn't exist, at least to my knowledge: 1. Does not weathercock 2. Surfs like a surf kayak (the most important performance aspect) 3. Holds enough gear for 2-3 days of minimalist camping 4. Tracking is irrelavant 5. Turning is very very easy 6. The "usual no's" (no rudder, no skeg, no bulkhead) Ideal length here is proabably around 12-13 feet. Well, these are my opinions/dreams. What are yours? Cheers, kevin *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
On Tue, 6 Oct 1998, K. Whilden wrote: > First, the kind that already exists, with characteristics in order of > importance. > 1. Does not weathercock > 2. High secondary stability, low initial stability > 3. turns easily when edged > 4. tracks well when not edged > 5. Carves turns when edged without any input from paddle strokes > 6. Easily controllable on a wave (most sea kayaks are not good at this, > so it is a low priority relatively > 7. Solid footbracing and thigh bracing. > 8. Holds bulky items easily such as my dutch oven and Djembe. > 9. no rudder or skeg required for the above, because these items can > break or get jammed, can take up room in the holds (e.g. skegs). To your long sea kayak list I would add 10. Well behaved in quartering seas. The stern on my wife's Nordkapp HM really gets pushed around by following quartering seas. 11. Light weight and reasonably durable. I like sub 40 pound boats and am willing to baby them some to get a lighter boat. How does this hypothetical boat handle oncoming waves? Does it punch through them or ride up over the top. > Now the kind of sea kayak that doesn't exist, at least to my knowledge: > 1. Does not weathercock > 2. Surfs like a surf kayak (the most important performance aspect) > 3. Holds enough gear for 2-3 days of minimalist camping > 4. Tracking is irrelavant > 5. Turning is very very easy > 6. The "usual no's" (no rudder, no skeg, no bulkhead) I would link one of the bigger whitewater boats might fit these requirements, using drybags instead of hatches. kirk olsen somewhere in new england *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
> > 11. Light weight and reasonably durable. I like sub 40 pound boats and > am willing to baby them some to get a lighter boat. > > Geez Kirk; where are you finding sub-forty-pound boats? I think my Osprey HP squeeks under when the humidity is low, but the Kevlar Caribou (Current Designs) I'm looking at is 43 lb. bone dry. Does that include topping up your drybags with Helium? *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Edward Sullivan wrote: > > 11. Light weight and reasonably durable. I like sub 40 pound boats and > > am willing to baby them some to get a lighter boat. > > Geez Kirk; where are you finding sub-forty-pound boats? I think my > Osprey HP squeeks under when the humidity is low, but the Kevlar Caribou > (Current Designs) I'm looking at is 43 lb. bone dry. Does that include > topping up your drybags with Helium? My futura carrera surf ski is about 32 pounds. My skin/frame baidarka is 35 pounds, with drybags. A friend builds and sells skin/frame boats that are 24 to 28 pounds. All but 1 of my canoes are also under 40 pounds. I think you just need to look harder ;-) kirk *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
Kirk Olsen wrote: > My futura carrera surf ski is about 32 pounds. My skin/frame baidarka 35 > pounds, with drybags. A friend builds and sells skin/frame boats that > are 24 to 28 pounds. All but 1 of my canoes are also under 40 pounds. > > I think you just need to look harder ;-) > > kirk Well, I like a roof over my feet thankyou. And bulkheads. And I don't think you should use skins unless the animal died a natural death or you ate it. I probably overestimate the delicacy of skin; laminates make me feel more secure. But then the right coast is older so most of the rocks are worn smooth. There was a skin kit mentioned on the list a while back called the Skimmer that tempted me for river work, which I do a lot of. Cheap and supposedly quick to build. *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Edward Sullivan wrote: > Well, I like a roof over my feet thankyou. And bulkheads. The surf ski is just a warm season boat for me. It's already been put away, until next May. > And I don't > think you should use skins unless the animal died a natural death or you > ate it. The "skins" used these days are usually synthetic. Double woven nylon, polyester, and canvas being the 3 favorites. I think the greenlanders still use real skins. > I probably overestimate the delicacy of skin; Keep in mind that all of the folding kayaks are "simply" take apart skin/frame boats. > laminates make me feel > more secure. But then the right coast is older so most of the rocks are > worn smooth. There are "lots" of skin boats on the west coast (of North America), more than on the east coast. Many of these are built with a nylon skin. Builders usually buy their nylon and polyester fabric from George Dyson. Dyson's original source of nylon was the fabric that is used as the filtering material at paper pulp plants, where a fabric failure could be hugely expensive. There was recently a post to the baidarka mailing list that someone had ripped the skin of their nylon hull. It was the first torn skin of 300 boats that they had been involved in building. Personally I think my hard boats are more susceptible to damage than my skin boat. kirk *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
Edward, Actually, depending on how the boat is constructed, even fiberglass boats can get very light. I doubt my Wilderness System's Artic Hawk is over 44 pounds. How do they do it? Well, the glass is not "overbuilt" like a Nordkapp. Also, it has no bulkheads. I just use airbags and get the same safety margin with much less weight. - Scott Sullivan wrote: > > > > > 11. Light weight and reasonably durable. I like sub 40 pound boats and > > am willing to baby them some to get a lighter boat. > > > > > > Geez Kirk; where are you finding sub-forty-pound boats? I think my > Osprey HP squeeks under when the humidity is low, but the Kevlar Caribou > (Current Designs) I'm looking at is 43 lb. bone dry. Does that include > topping up your drybags with Helium? > *************************************************************************** > PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List > Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net > Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net > Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ > *************************************************************************** *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
> Also, it has no bulkheads. I just use airbags and get > the same safety margin with much less weight. > > - Scott Do you know the actual weight of two airbags? Must be very heavy bulkheads to be heavier? Hatches can be the weight of the area of the hole plus a neoprene cover. Alex -- ---------------------------------------------------- Alex Ferguson a.ferguson_at_chem.canterbury.ac.nz Electronics Workshop, Chem Dept, Univ of Canterbury Christchurch, New Zealand *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
Alex, Sorry, but I have to disagree. In my experience stock bulkheads can be pretty substantial in weight - especially in the British boats. While it is true that the hatches are not that heavy, the bulkheads that go with them often are. I truly believe that the non-hatches and bulkhead kayaks with airbags are substantially lighter. I know that my Artic Hawk is! Of course your milage may vary! - Scott Ferguson wrote: > > > Also, it has no bulkheads. I just use airbags and get > > the same safety margin with much less weight. > > > > - Scott > > Do you know the actual weight of two airbags? Must be very > heavy bulkheads to be heavier? Hatches can be the weight of > the area of the hole plus a neoprene cover. > > Alex > -- > ---------------------------------------------------- > Alex Ferguson a.ferguson_at_chem.canterbury.ac.nz > Electronics Workshop, Chem Dept, Univ of Canterbury > Christchurch, New Zealand > *************************************************************************** > PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List > Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net > Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net > Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ > *************************************************************************** *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
> - Scott > Sorry, but I have to disagree. In my > experience stock bulkheads can be pretty substantial in > weight - especially in the British boats. Sorry, I was forgetting you were talking about British boats which seem to built like battleships. Here the seat is often the aft bulkhead so what ever weight that would be, it is doing two jobs. A thin foam-glass laminate (which is usually used by those who know) is very light and very strong and used for the forebulkhead. > While it is true that the hatches are not that heavy, the bulkheads that > go with them often are. See above, wrong if correctly done. > I truly believe that the non-hatches and bulkhead kayaks with airbags > are substantially lighter. I know that my Artic Hawk is! OK, do you paddle with anything else like spare clothing, lunch, spare water and then if like my partner and me, a stove or thermos, a pair of sneakers, binoculars, camera, first aid etc., where do you put them - in a dry bag? Then just how tightly does the dry bag and air bag fit and fill the "hole"? A properly designed bulkheaded boat with decent sized hatches and properly fitting neoprene covers will be easy to load, light and have the very minimum of water in it if capsized. You can NEVER reduce the flooded volume of an airbagged boat to that of properly bulkheaded boat - and I don't mean one of those with the aft bulkhead a foot behind the seat either, very poor design. And while we're talking of loading, how do you get things (that last tin of baked beans) into those little corners like the stern or between bags if you are loading from the cockpit? And unloading, either load specially or totally unload to find the peanut butter (or some such) for lunch (the item you though no one would want today). I'll admit, if you are just going out for a paddle, like just a morning sprint down the river, round the harbour or some such, then an empty boat, a paddle, PFD and spray skirt is about all you'll want (but I don't call that SEA kayaking). Alex -- ---------------------------------------------------- Alex Ferguson a.ferguson_at_chem.canterbury.ac.nz Electronics Workshop, Chem Dept, Univ of Canterbury Christchurch, New Zealand *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Alex Ferguson wrote: > > - Scott > > Sorry, but I have to disagree. In my > > experience stock bulkheads can be pretty substantial in > > weight - especially in the British boats. > > Sorry, I was forgetting you were talking about British boats > which seem to built like battleships. Here the seat is often > the aft bulkhead so what ever weight that would be, it is > doing two jobs. A thin foam-glass laminate (which is usually > used by those who know) is very light and very strong and > used for the forebulkhead. Pygmy kayaks have a very thin 4mm plywood sheet that can be glassed or simply coated with epoxy to create the bulkhead. Very strong and lightweight. I agree that well designed bulkheads can be very light and strong. > > > While it is true that the hatches are not that heavy, the bulkheads that > > go with them often are. > > See above, wrong if correctly done. > > > I truly believe that the non-hatches and bulkhead kayaks with airbags > > are substantially lighter. I know that my Artic Hawk is! > > OK, do you paddle with anything else like spare clothing, > lunch, spare water and then if like my partner and me, a > stove or thermos, a pair of sneakers, binoculars, camera, > first aid etc., where do you put them - in a dry bag? Then just > how tightly does the dry bag and air bag fit and fill the > "hole"? A properly designed bulkheaded boat with decent > sized hatches and properly fitting neoprene covers will be > easy to load, light and have the very minimum of water in it > if capsized. You can NEVER reduce the flooded volume of > an airbagged boat to that of properly bulkheaded boat - and I > don't mean one of those with the aft bulkhead a foot behind > the seat either, very poor design. > Sorry Alex, but I think this is wrong. A non-bulkheaded boat with airbags will have substantially less water than a bulkheaded boat with the use of a sea sock. I would not recommend that anyone use simply airbags in a non-bulkheaded boat, because airbags can too easily float out if they are not properly inflated to make a tight fit. > And while we're talking of loading, how do you get things > (that last tin of baked beans) into those little corners like the > stern or between bags if you are loading from the cockpit? > And unloading, either load specially or totally unload to find > the peanut butter (or some such) for lunch (the item you > though no one would want today). > With a little bit of practice and forethought, it easy to load both big and small items into the deepest, darkest corners of the boat. At least, I never have any trouble. Cheers, kevin *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
Geez folks, it looks like I started a growing new thread by accident! My only point to Alex, was that there is much to be said for bulkhead free boats if they have proper airbags. If a boat has very thin bukheads, I don't see any problem. But even light bulkheads and hatches have to add (I'm guessing) about 5 pounds including glue, epoxy (and cloth if used), wood, and the hatches themselves. Alex wondered about the contents in the boat, well this doesn't have to be a problem. You can use dry bags for most stuff, and small plastic boxes (ie. Pelican) for the awkwardly shaped or sharp stuff. As far as shifting, I haven't taken any expeditions yet, but I think you could easily place all the stuff in first, then blow up the air bags, as needed, to function as corks. The bags are tapered, so it would lock all the stuff in the bow and stern ends. Also, you could use the bow bag as a place to rest your feet if you want. Lastly, I noticed that the deck of my Artic Hawk (which is built very light) is a bit too flexible. The inflated bow and stern air bags help to stiffen the whole deck. - Scott *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
Scott Ives wrote: > > Geez folks, it looks like I started a growing new thread by accident! > My only point to Alex, was that there is much to be said for bulkhead > free boats if they have proper airbags. [snip] > Alex wondered about the contents in the boat, well this doesn't have > to be a problem. You can use dry bags for most stuff, and small plastic > boxes (ie. Pelican) for the awkwardly shaped or sharp stuff. Alex's point about bulkheads-and-hatches allowing every cranny to be used still is valid, nonetheless, because dry bags are roundish, leaving gaps when stashed adjacent to each other, and it's tough to make good use of the ends of a bulkhead-less boat. Even tapered drybags (I stuff mine with spare clothes/sleeping bag) leave substantial gaps, which can be filled from an adjacent hatch, if you have one. > As far as > shifting, I haven't taken any expeditions yet, but I think you could > easily place all the stuff in first, then blow up the air bags, as > needed, to function as corks. The bags are tapered, so it would lock > all the stuff in the bow and stern ends. *Not the case,* unless you have a system of bungies or ties which form a barrier for the wedge-shaped air bags to rest against. In a capsize in serious waters, *the air bags will work loose* as water surges in and out of the cockpit. Try it in small surf or on a weather beach with 2-foot seas running. In my nonbulkheaded, rudderless Pygmy, I use a sea sock with a 2-inch piece of close-fitting dense ethafoam (?) on my side of the sock, jammed up against the footpegs, to secure the load forward. To the rear, I have a bungie, permanently anchored on one end to a D-ring, which threads through two other D-rings and snaps to a 4th one to form a figure-eight barrier. Holds big stuff in, but little items would slip past it. On a stitch-and-glue boat, the hatch can be the piece of deck produced when you saber-saw the hole (strip of plywood and neoprene gasket added inside; two or three straps on top), and the bulkhead can be epoxy-saturated 1/8 inch marine plywood. I seriously doubt a hatch/bulkhead of this type adds much more than a pound to the boat. Alex will know, because he builds boats like this, I believe. All of the above notwithstanding, I like my non-bulkheaded Pygmy, and get a special private joy from lifting one end high and listening to the cascade of gear tumble to the center of the boat for unloading. -- Dave Kruger Astoria, OR *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
I paddled a Kevlar Hawk at a demo day that had no bulk heads or gelcote and weighed 32lbs. You'd pick it up over your head to dump the water out of it.. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net > [mailto:owner-paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net]On Behalf Of Scott Ives > Sent: Thursday, October 08, 1998 3:41 PM > To: a.ferguson_at_chem.canterbury.ac.nz > Cc: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net > Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] high performance sea kayaks > > > Alex, > > Sorry, but I have to disagree. In my experience stock bulkheads can > be pretty substantial in weight - especially in the British boats. > While it is true that the hatches are not that heavy, the > bulkheads that > go with them often are. > > I truly believe that the non-hatches and bulkhead kayaks > with airbags > are substantially lighter. I know that my Artic Hawk is! > > Of course your milage may vary! > > - Scott > > Ferguson wrote: > > > > > Also, it has no bulkheads. I just use airbags and get > > > the same safety margin with much less weight. > > > > > > - Scott > > > > Do you know the actual weight of two airbags? Must be very > > heavy bulkheads to be heavier? Hatches can be the weight of > > the area of the hole plus a neoprene cover. > > > > Alex > > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Alex Ferguson a.ferguson_at_chem.canterbury.ac.nz > > Electronics Workshop, Chem Dept, Univ of Canterbury > > Christchurch, New Zealand > > > ************************************************************** > ************* > > PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List > > Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net > > Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net > > Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ > > > ************************************************************** > ************* > ************************************************************** > ************* > PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List > Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net > Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net > Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ > ************************************************************** > ************* > *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
In a message dated 10/6/98 5:09:38 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 735769_at_ican.net writes: << On another note, Ari mentioned capsizing his Nordkapp while learning to paddle it. I find it interesting that capsizing seems to be an integral part in learning how to paddle a boat that is reputed to be so seaworthy. It would be interesting to start another thread that defines what characteristics a high performance sea kayak would possess. I wonder if ease of capsize is one of them and wonder if the rest cannot be achieved with more stable boats. >> I have often heard paddlers exclaim that they have paddled so many miles over so many years without ever capsizing, like this is some sort of badge of honor. I capsize on a fairly regular basis. However, these capsizes are not exactly accidental. I believe in order to expand ones limits in a kayak you need to first know what they are. I continually push my limits, and consequently capsize, in order to test my boundaries and try to push my abilities beyond them. This does not mean that I capsize every time I go out. In fact, I can't even remember the last time I had a genuine "accidental" capsize. But I believe that Ari was reflecting on a capsize which occurred in a practice situation. It seems that I read a statistic some years back in Sea Kayaker magazine where it was found that the paddlers of narrow "tippy" boats actually capsized less then the paddlers of wider more stable boats. If this isn't true, then it should be :-) Scott So.Cal. *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
Scott wrote; > I have often heard paddlers exclaim that they have paddled so many miles >over so many years without ever capsizing, like this is some sort of badge of >honor. It may be a badge of honour. For example, I knonw many people who have never capsized in open water on an expedition. Consider the paddling involved (Baffin Island, Labrador, Hudson's Bay, Lake Superior, the Atlantic Ocean etc.) one might say they were rather skilled. >I capsize on a fairly regular basis. However, these capsizes are not >exactly accidental. I believe in order to expand ones limits in a kayak you >need to first know what they are. I continually push my limits, and >consequently capsize, in order to test my boundaries and try to push my >abilities beyond them. Scott provides for us a good example of one attitude towards paddling which involves expanding skills and constantly pushing ones limits. Another attitude would embrace a different approach - that of treating paddling as a means to explore the world. Exploration need not involve pushing one to the limit. Within the context of my paddling, avoiding a capsize constitutes the objective of seamanship. To that end I would prefer a boat that resisted capsize. What I wondered, however, was whether an easy to capsize boat could be defined as a better boat simply because it might be easy to capsize. Is a Nordkapp a better boat than, for example, a Current Designs Solstice by virtue of its being less stable? >But I believe that Ari was reflecting on a capsize which occurred in >a practice situation. It seems that I read a statistic some years back in Sea >Kayaker magazine where it was found that the paddlers of narrow "tippy" boats >actually capsized less then the paddlers of wider more stable boats. If this >isn't true, then it should be :-) It does not sound like Ari was practising but I may be wrong. 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 - 16:32:52 PDT