I'll second everything Kevin said about this - though I have no personal experience with the Mariner Coaster - have seen it, but never paddled it. There is no inherent safety in large volume boats, as such. Some boats are better designed for some purposes, that's all. My subjective impressions have been that shorter boats are easier to control in following seas, **all other things being equal**. Also, I've thought that very long boats may be harder to control in surf. Boats with very finely drawn out bows (like many of the Current Designs boats) will bury their noses in a sea, "pearling". Boats with finely drawn sterns and/or built-in skegs may be somewhat harder to control in following seas. But I don't know enough about boat design to predict how a particular boat will handle in following seas. I would just have to try each one. - Bill Hansen *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
Bill Hanson wrote >There is no inherent safety in large volume boats, as such. Some boats are >better designed for some purposes, that's all. My subjective impressions have >been that shorter boats are easier to control in following seas, **all other >things being equal I don't want to compare large volume boats to narrow boats in following sea conditions. Rather the comparison is between narrow boats and SLIGHTLY wider ones. I mean those with a bit more, but not too much, stability. That was why I wondered about the Mariner MAX compared to my Mariner Express, only about 1" wider. Or the Mariner II, only about 1 " narrower. I used to have the shorter Coaster and find that the Express is much easier to travel with in following seas; even though it doesn't play as well in surf or rips. It holds a line down weather with less attention than the Coaster. Bill Hanson wrote: **. Also, I've thought that very long boats may be harder to >control in surf. Boats with very finely drawn out bows (like many of the >Current Designs boats) will bury their noses in a sea, "pearling". The older Current Designs boats did this very badly but the latest Solstices have a more flared bow and resist pearling fairly well. I don't mean in shore break surf, but in following seas. In my experience the Solstice GTS is extremely comfortable holding a line when travelling down weather, infinitely more relaxing and easy than the Coaster. Even though the Coaster is infinitely easier to manage for surf play. Kevin Whilden wrote: >I do not think that volume will make too much difference in the likelihood >of capsize in following seas, and in fact too much volume in the form of >extra width would result in extra initial stability and increase the >likelihood of a capsize.. Paddler ability is the most important factor in >likely hood to capsize in following seas. Second to that, is the >likelihood of a certain hull to broach, which is the cause of most >capsizes in following seas. The least likely Mariner boat to broach is >probably the Coaster -- a very good boat overall, and probably an >excellent complement to your Express. In general, hard chine boats tend to >broach less, and I really like my Pygmy Arctic Tern The reason I wondered about volume and the likelihood of capsize is that with a bit more stability, especially with the chine as in the MAX, a non professional like myself will lean more confidently and be less likely to lean either too much or too little. The boat would be more forgiving of mistakes. It was not my experience that the the Coaster is less likely to broach than the Express. You have to have faster reflexes to prevent the broach since the boat turns so readily. I was wondering if the MAX or II would require even slower reflexes. I would love to try the Arctic Tern but having thumbs instead of fingers would not dream of trying to build one. John Myers wrote: >I recently talked with Cam Broze about the Express, Max and M-2. He puts >the M-2 in the skinny boat category, >more likely to capsize in rough conditions. His personal favorite is the >Coaster which is not surprising since this is his own design. Somehow the >canard that "narrow" is seaworthy and "wide" is not has become a widely >held belief but one which I think is invalid. My personal bias against wide >kayaks is based more on sluggish performance and sloppy fit. Evidence seems >to suggest that very narrow boats [less than 22"] are more likely to >capsize even in the hands of an expert. I think that you may be correct. But I have found no experts to agree. 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/ ***************************************************************************
The person we need here is John Winters; he's said that stability is one of his favorite topics. He's also explained broaching in a way that is easy for me to understand. Gerald Foodman wrote: > Bill Hanson wrote > >There is no inherent safety in large volume boats, as such. Some boats are > >better designed for some purposes, that's all. My subjective impressions > >have been that shorter boats are easier to control in following seas, **all > >other things being equal > > I don't want to compare large volume boats to narrow boats in following sea > conditions. Rather the comparison is between narrow boats and SLIGHTLY > wider ones. I mean those with a bit more, but not too much, stability. > There are probably more important factors in stability than just the beam or volume. The hull shape and the difference between the initial and secondary stability is important. I recently paddled (in a pool) the latest boat from Boreal Designs, the Ellesmere. It is a Greenland style boat with a hard chine hull. I own a Solstice GTH and have played with a GTS. These boats are very different. The Ellesmere is narrow, around 21 or 22 inches (the latest Sea Kayaker mag has a photo and details) and is comparable in some ways to the GTS. However, the difference in stability is notable. The GTS has good initial stability and fair secondary stability that allows you to lean the boat over for a turn. However, the Ellesmere has good initial stability and astounding (for a narrow boat) secondary stability. It is not the magnitude of the righting moment that is striking, but the fact that the Ellesmere can sit on edge very easily. The GTS is tricky to keep on edge in that once on edge you aren't balanced well (most boats I've paddled are like this, but I've tried few hard chine boats) and you have to actively maintain the balance. The Ellesmere seems to like sitting on edge - a little knee pressure and you're up and can stay there! Note that I'm comparing these boats empty - loaded for touring could yield different impressions. By the way, my guess is that the Ellesmere is a smaller volume boat than the GTS. I love my GTH for touring, but for playing in rougher conditions, I'd like to try the Ellesmere. Even though it's a narrower boat, its stability characteristics, coupled with it's rocker and manouverability make me believe it would be fun and reliable. I'll second the comments already made that stability is secondary to broaching characteristics in the conditions you've described as the target environment for your boat usage. > > The reason I wondered about volume and the likelihood of capsize is that > with a bit more stability, especially with the chine as in the MAX, a non > professional like myself will lean more confidently and be less likely to > lean either too much or too little. The boat would be more forgiving of > mistakes. I think the only way to determine the suitability of a boat for yourself would be to ignore the numbers and try them in the water. I don't think that you can safely generalize on the handling characteristics based on a few dimensions like beam, volume etc. > > John Myers wrote: > >I recently talked with Cam Broze about the Express, Max and M-2. He puts > >the M-2 in the skinny boat category, > >more likely to capsize in rough conditions. His personal favorite is the > >Coaster which is not surprising since this is his own design. Somehow the > >canard that "narrow" is seaworthy and "wide" is not has become a widely > >held belief but one which I think is invalid. My personal bias against wide > >kayaks is based more on sluggish performance and sloppy fit. Evidence seems > >to suggest that very narrow boats [less than 22"] are more likely to > >capsize even in the hands of an expert. > > I think that you may be correct. But I have found no experts to agree. > Shouldn't that canard be "wide is seaworthy and narrow isn't"? - at least that's what I usually hear. Wide usually means higher initial stability. Initial stability means on flat water - on waves that translates into an overturning moment rather than a righting one. Beginners judge a boat by its initial stability since it feels more stable on flat water. Experienced paddlers aren't as quick to judge. As far as narrow boats capsizing in the hands of experts - could it be that they push the limits more? Too many variables, not enough time to evaluate them all. Mike *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
Michael wrote; >The person we need here is John Winters; he's said that stability >is one of his favorite topics. He's also explained broaching in a >way that is easy for me to understand. AWWW Shucks. Like so many things in boat design volume can have a positive or a negative effect just as stability can cause problems as well as solve them. In a better world boats would be designed as system with every part or factor balanced to produce a given result. The better world having not yet arrived we do the best we can with what we have. The problem we face is that a person having a bad experience with a type of boat might assume that a particular factor (high or low volume for example) is a "bad" thing when the problem may have been how the volume was distributed. A simple example; Imagine a boat with X volume but having "U" shaped sections with vertical sides It will probably pound and be slow. Now imagine the same volume boat with "V'd" sections that have a concave side. It will probably pearl and plunge deeply into waves. Clearly how the boat gets shaped affects the way the boat performs. Now imagine a full ended high volume boat with "V'd" sections tapering up to a chine. It might not pound at all and may have enough lift when immersed deeply to prevent pearling. Now imagine a fine ended boat with spray rails or a flaring topsides. It might do the same thing. Simply put, one can achieve the same thing in many ways. The issue of control also lends itself to a multitude of solutions. One can approach control as something that one does with the paddle I.E. a short rockered boat. One can also approach it as a long boat with excellent directional stability that will not allow the boat to waver from the desired course. Both approaches work for specific goals. All this applies to stability. Some features (high initial stability coupled with low displacement) can be dangerous in some conditions but it can also be advantageous in others. The great sponson war erupted because people claimed that sponsons were all good or all bad. In truth they had good features and bad features and so long as one did not assume they made everyone safe all the time you might get some benefit form them. Boats with low initial stability have value in those conditions and circumstances where that proves useful but the blanket statement that the characteristics is always best simply doesn't hold water. Not much help other than to emphasise that what one wants may not have anything to do with what one gets. 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/ ***************************************************************************
>Too many variables, not enough time to evaluate them all. > >Mike Isn't that called "life?" :-) Ira *************************************************************************** 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 - 16:32:56 PDT