Re: [Paddlewise] Boat Opinions & Analysis, was "request opinion off list"

This is a long post between Jerry and I. You are welcome to join in. My
opinions, expressed or even implied, are just that, mine. I am not a expert
with respect to design of kayaks. I'm not really even knowlegable as many
PW'ers on this subject. And I know some people think I'm a goof, but we all
have to be good at something!
Gerald's post and my replies are broken down for you, if you must read:
>
>Doug's original post:
>>>>highly skilled paddler in a Sirius, with a skeg, in a quartering sea with
>>>>a 30 knot gale. The man never paddled the kayak again after that trip (he
>>>>had done previous trips in it too) and now paddles a Gulfstream. The
straight
>>>>tracking former kayak would run off the wave, and too much effort was
>>>>required to bring it back on course. The Gulfstream type of hull allows
>>>>for easy leaning and fast course correction, though his newer boat is a
bit
>>>>slower.

Doug's subsequent post:
>>I would say that I prefer the Sirius, from the times I've tried it. The
>>wider Gulfstream, in comparison, just doesn't put you "in touch" with the
>>water conditions as much.

Jerry's query:
>Why would you prefer the Sirius if it requires too much effort to bring back
>on course?  If the Gulfstream hull is easy leaning and fast course
>correcting, why are you more in touch with the water in the Sirius?

I would prefer the Sirius because it is more what I am used to. I am a
short (5'-7") stocky guy. I do not have a lot of suppleness and
flexibility. I do not have long arms to do a lot of dexterous paddle play
required of a more maneuverable sea kayak. I've been out with guys in some
fierce, mixed tide rip, wind conditions. The taller guys with the longer
arms and skill did things with their Capelas, Gulfstreams, Skerrys and
Orions I only fantasize about (no Freudian overtones intended!). I am
fairly top heavy too, so find it further difficult to do a lot of extreme
edging/leaning. A wider kayak like the Gulfstream admittedly would give me
more options in this regard because of the increase in stability, but I
just can't get used to the kayak's bigger "presence" beneath me. 

I would be more "in touch" with the water in the Sirius, for me, because I
like a narrow kayak that responds to the slightest hip movement. This is
something only a 
kayaker with a narrow boat will understand, and is a bit of a mystery to
the wider kayak owner who does not understand this feature of dynamic
stability. Being "in touch" simply means you sense every movement of the
kayak in the waves and can respond instantly - not every ones cup of tea.
Having the ability with a more maneuverable kayak to respond to course
correction needs is a different aspect of being "in touch", but an
important one and the one you are questioning. Part of the problem with the
Sirius is when it is heavily loaded with a greater proportion of weight in
the stern during following seas. It tends to get pushed around at this
point. I think if my friend had run more weight in the front, then the
problem would have been less severe. Of course, loading bow heaving in
following seas causes a different problem not always addressed by the usual
debate on loading -- their is greater tendency to bury the bow in the
trough, as it submerges into the back of the wave (the wave in front of
you). Unloaded, the Sirius is easier to course correct as its deep "V" hull
is not at such a greater depth. Knowing me, I'd probably put a rudder on
the Sirius too! 

Doug commented earlier about his friend who is selling the Sirius:  
>>This is unusual in that people who buy Brit type boats, once having made
their >>purchase, generally are very satisfied.

Jerry queries further:
>Because of a flaw in human nature most people are very satisfied with
>whatever they have just bought.  Did you ever have a new owner of a boat or
>car tell you it was a foolish purchase?  (I certainly don't mean that buying
>a Brit boat is foolish.)

The Brits aren't totally foolish, after all, they did eventually
disestablish the Monarchy! And more recently, spokespersons for the sport
of sea kayaking in the UK have actually admitted that they did not invent
the modern sport of sea kayaking :-)

Seriously, you do have a point above, but I would modify it further by
suggesting that most people are very satisfied with whatever it is that
_they get used to_. My original intent with my comment was that British
boats generally, and some of the more North American esoteric type kayaks,
are usually purchased with a lot of prior thought and consideration. They
are hard to get a hold of for trying out, expensive, often heavy to lift,
and the type of person making this kind of buying decision usually does so
fully informed and with an intent to keep it.

Doug mentioned earlier that:
>>I do know that there are still some hold-outs around here who still paddle
>>the deep "V" hulled Baidarka of yesteryear from P&H, precisely because they
>>do track so well for point to point exposed coast cruising. They don't seem
>>to need a rudder, and with the up-turned ends, are great at backing up
>>through kelp beds in a choppy sea -- but, they are very tippy.

So, Jerry asks, of course:
>Does this straight tracking boat run off the wave and require much effort to
>get back, as you describe the Sirius?  Is it "straight trackingness" that
>makes it run off?  I consider my GTS straight tracking but it doesn't run
>off at 20 to 25 knots following conditions.

The old Baidarka (out of production now, I believe) was a kayak with a full
"V" running its entire length, though it obviously lost a bit of the "V"
amidship. It tracks very well, and was known as a stiff tracking kayak
requiring lots of leaning to turn it. Owners needed to learn to be *very*
proactive to stay on course in a bigger following sea. You wold need to
anticipate *just before* running off course commenced, and bring it back
in-line. Interestingly, the folks at CD have confided in me that the GTS is
a better all-around tracking preformed than the Extreme. The Extreme is a
fast boat however, though the Expedition is faster, but not as lively a boat.

Getting back to the "straight trackingness" of the Sirius being a causative
factor, man, this is a huge paradox. Why does a stiff tracking kayak "run
off" in certain following sea/wind conditions? Unfortunately, I am not a
navel architecture. Neither is Matt Broze or John Winters, with all due
respect to them. They have helped us unlock some of the mysteries and
explain some of the technical issues. Matt is an engineer, a number
cruncher. Matt has made a lot of claims with respect to the desirability of
a more maneuverable kayak in quartering, following seas, where the paddler
makes small, corrective actions to keep on course. While I'm not sure how
much actual paddling John has done (no negativity implied here), I do know
Matt spends a fair amount of time, when he is able, out on the exposed,
open coast in a variety of conditions, and that does speak absolute volumes
to me about his claims, theories, advice and ultimately his designs. I
don't have the answers, and never claimed too. 

Another Doug plug:
>>The wider Orion is a popular boat with extreme paddlers, as it offers
stability for
>>tall paddlers, tracks well with a bit of edging/leaning, and with its
higher >>gunwales, once leaned over, rides like its on a rail -- something
I can't do as well >>in my low decked Nordkapp.

And Jerry asks:
>Shouldn't a boat carve a turn when it is leaned over, rather than riding
>like it is on a rail?  Is the fact that you can't do this as well much of an
>issue?  Why choose a Nordkapp when the other boats you mention do do this
>well?

What I meant here is that in a following, quartering sea, in order to
counter-act the forces, you would normally lean or edge the kayak over so
that the greater bilge presented would help keep the kayak on the intended
course - standard operating procedures for those inclined. Holding this
position can be taxing in a kayak with low gunwales, as the secondary
stability is not as strong as the kayak with more volume in that hull to
deck joint area. Some people like the extra volume, some don't. Paddler's
preference, like everything else. It is also a question of fit, and other
things like a paddlers weight. Fortunately, people like Andree Hurely,
Matt, and others are spreading the message about boat suitability and fit.
I've noticed in my years of paddling with others and bumping into others on
the water, that a good 25% of paddlers, if not more, are in the "wrong
kayak". I'm short torsoed, so I like a low deck. I am a bit heavy at 195 to
210 (varies between seasons), my self-modified Nordkapp is about 85lbs, so
with a full load, there is very little windage. Side slip is minimal, and
high winds are a joy! Something like a Romany would track better (easier to
corse correct, given that both were rudderless), but has more windage. My
biggest problem is heavily breaking following seas. Many of us know what it
is like to surf down in front of the crest of a wave, only to broach
slightly, and then realize the next wave bearing down on you is going to
cause a full broach unless you get in back perpendicular. I think the more
maneuverable kayak, or the one with lots of gunwale is easier to get lined
back up, but I was not willing to give up the low windage, so went with the
rudder option. Yes, if my rudder breaks in these conditions, given that my
Nordkapp does not have the modified keel at the back, I would be in
trouble. In fact, this has happened to me on a trip near the Bunsby Islands
with a 35 knot gale, and I had *great* difficulty course correcting and
keeping up with my friends who were trying to make a run for cover.   

Doug pontificated here, too:
>>The Romany performs well in that kind of situation too, as do some of the
Arluk >>series. However, I always go further in a wind storm, faster, and
usually beat my >>bigger meat head friends that try to beat me through 5
knot currents going up hill in
>>their other boats.
 
Jerry ponders:
>How do you account for this increased uphill efficiency of the Nordkapp?
>Later on you say that various North American boats are more efficient than
>Brittish ones.

Many N.A. boats have a flatter bottom profile. for day paddling at least,
some of them are a joy to paddle. I think this flat water efficiency is
where John Winters excels in terms of tweaking performance, IMNSHO. The
specific aspect I was referring to was a kayak's ability to have a nice
"glide". You don't hear many people talk about it. I think I recall PW's
Nick Gill mention it of his Mariner Coaster, though I'm not familiar with
its hull profile. In my original post, I was contrasting two notions. The
first was that there are some very efficient kayak designs out there that
have really nice glide. You take a stroke, and the boat doesn't come to a
sudden stall. The other notion was that a good rough water boat must have a
sea-kindly ride, which can be mutually exclusive with a good gliding kayak,
due to static stability compared to dynamic stability. Perhaps some kayaks
have both. I wish someone would run a symposium 
on an exposed coastline, with all the various kayaks for trying out.

BTW, by meathead friends, I meant the other guys were all strong paddlers,
so comparisons were similar in terms of strength. I don't know why the
Nordkapp does so well. Narrowness? More determination? More experience
reading the eddylines, backeddy helping currents? I know a couple of the
fellows looked into buying Nordkapps after that, but after paddling them,
didn't like the low foredeck and how deeply the kayak sank given their
weight. 
 
More Doug plugs:
>>the CD GTS, as I may have mentioned to you in a previous e-mail, is one
of the better >>all-around kayaks I know of, and I'm not saying that
because they are made here in >>Victoria, BC. Their predictability is
something that, while subjective, probably >>accounts for its high sales.
In quartering seas, there are no sudden turn-turtle
>>surprises.

Jerry states:
>For me, competent but less than expert, this predictability is of prime
>importance.  Especially for solo excursions in rough water.  My Mariner
>Express is similarly predictable, though totally different from my GTS.

Doug said in his original post:
>> my experience suggests most GTS users deploy rudders at that
>>point. (20knots) Bear in mind that up until that approximate sea-state
>induced by those kind of winds <snip>

Jerry rises to the occasion:
>This raises a technique question:  When conditions start to exceed 20 knots,
>in quartering conditions, and I lower my rudder, I lean less and use less
>paddle strokes for correction.  I end up relying on the rudder because it is
>so much easier than all the corrections I was doing moments before.  I just
>use my energy to go straight.  Experimenting, I might raise the rudder
>again, and find I am OK, having more fun perhaps, but expending way more
>energy.  Do you generally employ your Nordkapp rudder at some level of wind
>speed?

Following, quartering seas are a pain for me at about the range you
mention, though I can deal with it, without the rudder. With the rudder, I
"lock and load" and go fer it! With rudder down, even a quartering sea or
wind propels me along at great speeds - who needs a bloody kite! With a big
sea directly astern, man, can I move. I also have made a rudder that is
similar to the one found on the Valley Canoe doubles - it is very long,
with a lot of drag, so I try not to use it unless I have to. Also, a front
quartering wind is also a real pain in the toosh, and I will deploy my
rudder at about 15 knots in order to save energy. it is a matter of safety
for me. What happens if condition deteriorate severely, and I can't get off
the water for a while. If I've expanded too much energy sweeping and doing
other correctives action, I might not have reserve strength left. 

Doug reflected earlier:
>>Reflective micro-management does come with time, practice, and
>>a person's natural predilection, if they have it, to work with their boat.
>>Not everybody does, and this is why Matt doesn't sell everybody in the
>>world his designs.

And Jerry:
>I would be most interested in your report of a rough water comparison
>between the Mariner II and your Nordkapp.

Me too. I wish that wascaly wabbit, Matt, would let me borrow one. I have a
modest proposal about all this, which I shall post on a separate e-mail
after I finish this one. I had a huge turkey dinner today (Thanksgiving in
Canuk land), so I'm vegging out in front of the computer, unable to move
much! Yes, I am a pig - and an "animal" when it comes to equipment and
boats - that's why nobody lends me their boats anymore.

Doug, with ruddy, disloyal diatribe, said:
>>Without a rudder (or skeg) and a disadvantage of not being able to edge/lean
>>significantly due to reduced gunwale buoyancy, I find I used to flounder
>>and run off course. I developed huge muscles in my earlier youth, storm
>>paddling (before my rudder installation) from the sweep strokes required.
>>I've landed on the beach with my arm muscles actually quivering from the
>>over-use. I've ran into a number of Norkapp owners who have paddled around
>>Vancouver Island, only paddling on one side, as they put it.

Jerry pops his eyeballs open:
>This makes the Nordkapp sound terrible.  Why put up with this when there are
>so many boats with gunwale boyancy that don't require one sided paddling?
>What is it that makes the Nordkapp such a great rough water boat as its
>reputations says?

Hey, if you like the sea, why not be closer to it? Actually, it is a very
popular kayak in the UK, as is the replacement, "Nordkapp Jubilee". They
have rough conditions over there. I think most of the recent Nordkapp's
come with skegs these days. the one-sided paddlers had the older version
with the fiberglass modified skegged hull, not the drop down type. To
answer your question, I don't know. I do know that Chris Duff is heading
for a New Zealand S Island circumnavigation, and he is leaving behind his
trusty steade, his Nordkapp, and taking instead his new Romany - the
disloyal bugger! One thing is for sure, my Norkapp has got me home from
some terrible seas. I know I have a reputation for "spinning a good yarn",
but I really do go out in some awful stuff off the Island here. And I wish
you could have seen the Nordkapp perform off the Storm Islands. Dave's
Arluk was almost hurled backwards a few times in the heavily breaking cross
seas during the height of the gale. My Nordkapp was flawless. It pierced
through the deepwater breaking waves into the full gale headwind, hour
after endless hour. The seas were pounding so hard, the cover on my
recessed Ritchie compass was pulled backwards. I had added a modified "V"
hull and inner and outer keel. The kayak was as stiff as a titanium
missile. The deep-draft rudder was flawless, allowing me to keep a course
off the wind a bit, towing a heavy, wide Piceses with an incapacitated
paddler. Ralph says a hour is the most anyone can tow a paddler before
exhaustion sets in. I towed for endless hours, and I sure could not have
done that in a wider, higher boat with lots of buoyancy, or one where I was
bashing my knuckles on the high foredeck. I mention this, because I had
spent years modifying my Nordkapp, taking a lot of guff from friends,
relatives, and kayak retailers, but it all came together that fateful day;
my kayak was perfect for me that day. BTW, my muscles are a lot smaller, if
any left at all, since I installed my rudder :-( I saw Derek Hutchinson
last week at Ocean River Sports, he said "Doug, is that you? Is that the
same young strapping lad I taught 20 years ago? You have put on a bit of
weight, lad, you have!" Yeah, well so had Derek!  

Doug stated perfectly:
>>If you are looking for the perfect boat, forget it. You may find a perfect
>>Violin if you have the money, but not a perfect kayak. Don't fall into the
>>trap my friend who is selling his Sirius and who bought the Gulfstream did.
>>I think he may very well, be looking for the perfect boat forever.

Jerry rebounds:
>I am looking for the perfect boat.  But it is the journey not the goal that
>counts.  Plus it is great fun trading boats every year or two.

Sounds good to me Jerry, if that is what you want to do. I'd like a fleet
of kayaks, and probably could have bought some different ones, given the
money I've put into rebuilding and modifying may Nordkapp over the years.
My friend with the Baidarka, bought two spares a few years ago, as he liked
the kayak so much and wanted future boats as each succeeding one wore out.
With fiberglass raw product prices skyrocketing worldwide, he made a
preemptive strike, and got two more before prices went way high (and the
Baidarka went out of production). He hasn't really tried any other boats,
but is so happy and used to his, that he will not change. Another friend of
mine who makes his own kayaks from cheap door skins, covered with epoxy and
cloth, took his latest design from a Sirius. He heavily modified the
original dimensions, put the skeg box much closer to the cockpit, and went
hard chine. I got to tell you, some of the seas we have paddled together,
including quartering seas from astern, were terrible. His kayak performed
so well, I was convinced his boat was perfect. it is his fourth boat, and
he plans on modifying his next one, correcting some of the faults he feels
exist on his current design. Most of us don't have the time to tweak a
perfect design like he is doing.
  
Doug teases Jerry:
>>I can't find my notes I was keeping on some other kayak designs. Anyway, I
>>keep a record of paddler's comments about their kayaks in a binder, and
I'll try
>>and find it ASAP.

And Jerry:
>Sound extremely interesting.

I've printed off most things that might prove useful in the future. I have
a cheap printer that uses the feed type paper. It is much faster than ink
jet printers. I keep threads on all kinds of things from PW, as well as
hand written comments, stuff of the internet, etc. Because I write
articles, this forms some of my research material. Stuff which is
copyrighted - most of it - is used only as a means to keep tabs on what
current trends are, or what peoples experiences have been. I spoke with
Nigel Foster about his article he was doing for SK Magazine on tethers. He
said he was too busy and if I wanted to do it, I was welcome. He was only
going to touch on the subject. I will do an in depth report, and will be
trying things out on the water in actual rough conditions, as I did with a
recent article on paddlefloats. The tether thread from PW will no doubt
give me some things to try out, and I hope that is okay with fellow PW'ers.

Doug ended his last post, thus: 
>>Until then, I better keep my little cake-hole shut!>

Jerry the man said:
>Don't do this.  Great post!  Lots of food for thought.

Okay, that means you asked for it! (The above responses, that is.) And yes
, now that my Norkapp *is* perfect for me, finally, I am looking around for
another boat, though I will most likely modify and build the cedar strip
"Outer Island", if I ever get my renovation finished.

BC'in Ya
Doug Lloyd 
***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not
to be reproduced outside PaddleWise without author's permission
Submissions:     paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net
Subscriptions:   paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************