John, I am surprised and baffled. I would like to take the end of your post first in order to attempt to set a new tone for this particular post. > Mark, I have little knowledge of your personal motivations. I much prefer > to talk about boats, their equipment and how they impact on safety and > paddling. I think you perceived my post as an attack on your motivations but > you could not have drifted further off course. I do not normally or often communicate by writing only and maybe my writing style reads differently to a stranger than what I intended when I wrote it. My surprise when I read your last reply was that I thought you had assumed a confrontational tone and my bafflement was as to why. I thought I had pretty much presented my case purely as personal opinion and frankly I didn't feel when writing how you apparently felt when reading. I will try to answer what I can of your message but you'll just have to take my word that most of what I wrote before was written much more lightly than you read it. This post will be the same. I guess I may have to employ more smliley faces when I am being slightly less than serious. Like I wrote before, I guess I am used to more verbal communication when inflection tells part of the story. I meant no offence. To save space in what will be an already too long reply start sentences with IMO unless otherwise noted. An please, I don't have time to compose this in too detailed or political a way so if you read something to be too provocative or controversial, it is likely that it is just my haste to write a reply in time allowed. Again I mean no offence. 735769 wrote: > > Mark wrote; > > ( SNIP) > > > > An interesting aspect of Mark's project has to do with when a kayak with > > > auxiliary sail power becomes a sailboat with auxiliary paddle power. > This > > > might seem like splitting hairs but it has a lot of importance from a > design > > > standpoint. > > > Since there is no widely accepted definition, I have always just worked > > with my own practical terms. One place I have always drawn my personal > > line is mentioned above. If a boat can not be converted back to a kayak > > when needed, I have always considered it a sailboat or kayak based > > sailboat. > > Is convertability an adequate basis for calling a sailboat a kayak and vice > versa? I have often paddled a rowboat using a double bladed paddle. Does > that make it a kayak? Is not changing from paddle to oars much easier than > changing from paddle to sail? I think you forgot the little smiley face to indicate that you are not serious. I did not call a sailboat a kayak or vice versa. This is my own personal working definition. To me it makes infinitely more sense than deciding whether a boat is a kayak or a sailboat by its primatic, which is what I think you say below. I think you may have missed my point in that to me a sailing kayak is a uniqe boat that is not entirely kayak or sailboat but is a sailing kayak by virtue of its convertability. It makes more sense "to me" to define a boat type by its function rather than by the individual design decisions made on the way to a boat hull design. If you are saying that putting a sail on a kayak makes it only a sailboat, I just can't agree. By that logic the boat you called a sailing canoe in your previous post does not exist either. I think you are just trying to make up rules to suit your current argument and to justify your own opinions. > > > > Anyway, the problem a designer faces has to do with the fact that sails > can > > > generate more power than a person paddling so one has to decide whether > to > > > use a higher prismatic coefficient (Cp) for the sailing or a lower Cp > for > > > the paddling. Generally one also likes to use more fullness higher up > > > forward to reduce trim forward when running under sail while preferring > a > > > finer entry on a kayak. Next one has to face whether the boat must sail > to > > > windward. Do you use a keel, lee boards, bilge boards, centerboard or > what? > > > All affect the hull design and impact on paddling. I am sorry but again these are just individual design considerations and to me do not move toward defining a type except for in such cases as with the use of a centerboard. This does speak to my concept of convertability and such features as a centerboard might be more commonly found in a sailboat than a sailing kayak by my functional yardstick. If your suggestion is true please tell me at which Cp does a kayak change into a sailboat. I know this sounds absurd but is this what you are suggesting? > > > > You and I seem to approach this from different starting points. Your > > questions arise from trying to design features into a boat hull to > > optimize its performance for a given purpose, hull design decisions. I > > only rarely work on hull designs. > > Absolutely. Perhaps that explains why I design boats for paddling and you > make sails for sailing. Of course, I also design sailboats for sailing, > power boats for powering and row boats for rowing. Oddly enough, keeping > them separate doesn't pose any problems - for me. This is an odd statement. I am not clear on how the fact that I mostly design and build sail rigs and you specialize in hulls adds anything to this. I can not see how the fact that you have drawn more hulls or I have more experience in kayak sailing is relavant. I guess what is odd is that you have not made any statement that I can see that seperates a kayak from a sailboat or offered any definition of your own. Certainly not anything as clear as a term defined by function. Perhaps you should more clearly state your position as I do not see how a statement of your resume futhers a definition of sailing kayak or sailboat. Until you or someone else comes up with a set of defintions that work better for me than what I have stated, I am going to stick to my functionally derived terms. I have sailed kayaks at least as much as the next guy. I have likely designed and built more rigs for kayaks than the next guy. I am as aware as anyone what might be desirable characteristics for a kayak hull that might be sailed more than paddled as far as prismatics, and distibutions of volume. If one is designing a kayak hull specifically for sailing, these things are obviously important. As far as I can tell these are the only parameters you have put forth in regard to a defintion of what differentiates a sailing kayak from a sailboat. Perhaps it would be better if you took off your hull drawing hat for a minute and humor me by stating what seperates sailboats from sailing kayaks by function. If I take a kayak hull that already exists and start adding sail hardware to it, when and why does it stop being a kayak or sailing kayak and become a pure sailboat, in your opinion of course. Remember, answering this question does not require that you design the hull, this is an existing boat that you and I could both agree was a kayak. I must maintain that just having the categories of kayak and sailboat with nothing inbetween is not sufficient for me. Please take a position. > > (SNIP) > > >You or others may rightly feel that these > > boats are engine auxiliary sailboats or trimarans. My feeling is that > > if the boat can be converted at will back to a paddling craft, it still > > remains functionally a sailing kayak. > > I suppose the relative term "at will" impacts on this kind of discussion. > Perhaps a definition of that would help. Difficult to discuss these things > when people have different ideas of what the terms mean. I think you have come to splitting hairs on this one so I will try to accomodate you with more detail. At will to me means "when I want to". On the water if needed without tools or the need to go ashore. Also having the ability to stow all sailing specific hardware aboard the kayak afer converting from sail as a part of being able to do this on the water. Having the parts of the sail rig configured so that they can be taken down and stowed from the cockpit of a kayak whenever one wants or needs to. I think this is as finely as I care to split this hair;) If you don't like myd definition please offer your own and we can go from there. > > > > The pedants among us might suggest that kayaks that get sailed more than > > > paddled belong in the sailing mailing lists. :-) > > I can certainly understand your point of view and usually duck and cover > > before I put sail and kayak on the same paddlewise page. Jackie's "- > > Anything to do with paddling boats!" is, unfortunately for the pedants, > > fairly broad and does leave the door open for some of us less desirables > > to sneak in on rare occasion. > > Hardly "less desirables". I sense you think I object to the discussion of > sailing rigs on kayaks. Not so although I do wonder at what point the > discussion becomes one suitable for a sailing list rather than a paddling > list. You may have provided the answer. My fault on this one, I didn't add a smilely face or grin. You must admit if you would be honest about this that there are those on the list that would just as soon there were no discussions of kayak sailing. The "less desirables" was simply a half joking recognition of those with that opinion whoever they may be. As far as when this becomes suitable for a sailing list, I guess when it no longer has "Anything to do with paddling boats!" This is from the acceptable topics list. By my own definition sailing kayaks are all paddling boats. I feel secure that we are entirely within bounds. Since you brought it up, I would not say that I think you object to the discussion of sailing rigs on kayaks. I think it would be more accurate to state that you get pretty indignant when someone does not agree with your view of anything to do with boats. This posting to which I am responding seems to be fairly clear evidence of that. I can honestly say that this is not a problem for me, I am not seeking to provoke you or to gain your agreement or aproval. I am merely expressing my personal opinions based on my experience which differs from yours. Whether you object or not is absolutely not an issue for me and I am not put off at all by your indignation. Please don't be concerned with my feelings in this respect. > > (SNIP) > > > I guess this goes back to the same personal risk evaluation that was > > discussed before in regard to the single use type kayaks. I am not sure > > that I can agree that these demands (self bailing and self righting > > ability) on a boat like a sailing kayak should be higher than those used > > in near shore conditions. It seems like most boating accidents happen > > near the hard. > > Possibly because most boating gets done close to land? No, and I don't have or care to find statistics to defend this statemnt because it is not that important but it was my understanding that even among blue water boats the majority of accidents come when encountering the influence of land. If you don't agree or can show me this is wrong I am open to why. > > While at sea one cannot stop and put ashore for sleep etc. Would it not be > nice to be able to sleep, eat, tend to bodily functions etc. without fear of > capsize? I do not see that this is a problem. The kayak I have for crusing will accomodate these needs. > > > I personally have done most of my offshore work on > > trimarans and a proa and feel really insecure on balasted keelboats or > > other boats that are not positively buoyant when holed. > > I too have done a considerable amount offshore sailing in tris and cats and > I take issue with your comments but I think that topic belongs on the > sailing mailing lists. > > >The idea of > > hanging lead from a boat is not intuitive to me. I think that a sailing > > kayak that is of a scale that can be manhandled for self rescue is more > > appealing than the than the popularly accepted "safety" of a "lead mine sailboat" . > > Perhaps one needs to think "outside the box". Not all ballast need come > from lead nor did I suggest that. You have boldly leapt to conclusions. I believe that I was using my examples of what I prefer to illustrate thinking "outside the box". That was entirely the point. I was contrasting conventional balasted sailboats which are products of "in the box" thinking to sailing kayaks on a perfectly valid safety issue. I am not clear on what you are taking issue with. I prefer boats with positive rather than negative buoyancy when holed, do you not? It seems that you are the one having the trouble getting outside the box on this subject. > > I wonder if the term "self rescue" has much validity except in one's mind. > It assumes a kind of constant readiness rescue oneself. Indeed, the idea of > "self - rescue" implies a failure of some sort. If al goes well, why does > one need rescuing? Your optimism has an interesting aspect when one > considers the possibility of getting sick, tired disoriented, or suffering > from some form of psychological disorder due to stress induced by the > constant need to remain upright through ones own efforts. This is getting a little bizzare. Are you suggesting that boats at sea never have any failures. It seems to me that unless it is myth, boats of all kinds have sunk or capsized unexpectedly and if this is the case it seems to be prudent to be prepared. This is priceless, you just made the perfect argument similar to that I use when I discuss narrow rudderless paddling-only kayaks with my purist friends. It has always been my position that minimally stable kayaks without rudders do not allow for "the possibility of getting sick, tired disoriented, or suffering > from some form of psychological disorder due to stress induced by the > constant need to remain upright through ones own efforts" Well said, I like your wording, I may have to use that sometime. Thanks for making my point, you have gotton there so much more quickly than I would have. This is part of the reason why when I consider making passage offshore in a kayak alone, I think it is important to have certaing design and hardware features. These might include such things as a sail rig for propulsion when I am unable to paddle. My boat also has removable outriggers for stability without my active effort. It also has the natural stability to allow sleeping, paddling or sailing without the outriggers. Multiple layers of stability and security and the ability to self rescue should all else go wrong are my ways of managing risk. Thank you, thank you, for so clearly stating good reasons to prefer a sailing kayak over a paddling only kayak for longer crossings. Add speed potential to your list of safety features and you about have the idea nai! led. You would make a good salesman for sailing kayaks. I don't think I would try to sell narrow kayaks with that argument though. > > >I do not advocate > > passagemaking to others in paddling or sailing kayaks or balasted > > monohulls. Risk assement has to be a personal evaluation and I will not > > personally readily accept standards imposed from the outside simply > > based on conventional wisdon for another type of craft. > > Actually I did not write anything about personal risk assessment. I wrote > about the inherent safety of boats and how to make a sea kayak safer for > open water passages. One cannot function at 100% all the time and can't put > ashore when convenient. If one chooses not to take advantage of added safety > then feel free to do so. As longtime readers of Paddlewise know, I support > freedom of choice even to not wearing your lifejacket. I was refering to a thread in the last month about risk, I thought you participated. Forgive me if I am mistaken. Aside from the great points you made above to support my personal choice, what safety features have I left out? I am not sure what reasonable safety features you are suggesting I missed. BTW, I also have and often wear a life jacket. > > >I do not think > > the standards as outlined in Marchaj's book can be applied across the > > board to my ideal sailing kayak. > > Which of Marchaj's propositions do you think fail to apply? I was refering specifically to your suggestion about self bailing and self righting. I do not happen to agree. I am not familiar with your designs but are all of them self bailing and self righting? What then is all this rolling and bailing stuff I read about? > > >I am not disagreeing with your > > position for you, particualarly as you are expected to be conservative > > when consulting profesionally, but some of that doesn't work for me > > personally (as opposed to professionally). > > I think you have gotten off on your personal preferences while I was talking > about boats and their characteristics. I doubt seriously if you have any > knowledge of what people expect of me when they consult me. Absolutely not the case. What you are claiming are your own preferences. You seem to think you have some access to the only truth. I do not think there is only one. There is not one authority that I know of that is always and only correct. This includes Marchaj. When you boil it down most of what we choose to believe is personal preference. Excuse me, but having been in the boating business since my teens I don't think it too difficult a leap to know what might be standard in your trade. Some of my oldest and dearest friends are professional boat designers and I do not expect what you do is significantly different than what they do. This is some of your indignation thing I mentioned earlier. > > > encourage kayak passagemaking of any kind. I feel that any kayak needs > > floatation but some of the features you might advocate from the Marchaj > > information are perhaps more appropriate to larger boats. > > Why cannot a ballasted boat still have positive flotation? Which of > Marchaj's points don't you feel apply? Why do they only apply to larger > boats? Should we consider a capsize a good thing? I will spell it out. Ballasted boats can have positive floatation, I own one that does. Fact is most of them don't. Do you disagree? To avoid being banished to the sailing lists it is perhaps only appropriate to stick to Marchaj's epistles on sailing kayaks:) As I mentioned above I was specifically disagreeing with your comment about self bailing and righting for which I think you used Marchaj as your coroborating authority. > > >As far as > > Lindemann goes, I have read it several times and I do not think it is > > clear whether his makeshift outrigger induced the capsizes as it is > > widely interpreted or merely failed to prevent them for apparent design > > reasons. > > Was it not clear that the capsize resulted from inadequate secondary > stability? Would a self righting boat have not been more likely to return > to an upright condition and save Lindemann spending the night clinging to an > overturned boat? ???? Are you suggesting that any boat of this size range can be made with enough secondary stability to be totally immune to capsize or that a there are kayaks that will dependably self right and bail? You had better get a patent on that design. > > > > > I will be curious if anyone else cares to weigh in on that one. I can > > just hear the roar now when the new self bailing and righting kayak > > regulations are introduced. > > I don't recall suggesting regulations. By shifting the discussion you have > employed what is sometimes called the "Straw man fallacy" in logic. People > often use this in hopes of making the other persons arguments look silly by > distorting, exaggerating, or misquoting a person. Mark, I expect better from > you. Please John, you flatter me with the suggestion of skills beyond my abilities but I must bow to the master of shifting the discussion in this case. I admit that I am sometimes prone to carry my examples to some absurd logical extreme for illustration as a way to get to the end of a thought while leaving out the middle part, but I will leave it to you to make your own arguments look how they will. I was just thinking of how skillfully you change and avoid the subject and twist things to suit your own arguments. An example might be leaving off the smilely face from my posting after my mention of regulations and electronics. Would that be a good example of this "Straw man fallacy" you mention? You are good at this, misquoting by the selective editing and leaving off the smiley face that indicated my suggestions were intentionally silly as a way to distort is even more clever and Machiavelian than what you suggest I did. Does this "Straw man fallacy" in logic apply to making my argument look silly by leaving out the symbol that it is intended to be so? I can't say that your intentions were to do that but my saying so about you reads about the same as your comments about me. You see, this is another example of carrying something to an absurd extreme for illustration. In the future, please refrain from judging me by your own intentions. > > >It should be interesting to see these > > ultimately idiot-proof 400 pound kayaks. We should probably include > > mandatory electronics at the same time;-) > > Why would a self righting kayak have to weigh 400 pounds? Why should anyone > foresee mandatory electronics? What part of my post suggested any kind of > legislation? > See answer to "Straw man fallacy" above for answer to this one too. Since I don't know of any self righting kayaks, I am not sure what they would weigh. I am sorry, but to be frank, I would have thought that the absurdity of the statements and the little smiley face at the end of the paragraph would be a dead give away that I was not entirely serious in my final comments. Well John you have disagreed with my definitions and danced around the subject for a long time without actually stating any definition at all or taking any firm position of your own. I really don't have time to play much more of these extended word games. If you care to respond to this, please try to keep it on subject. I might be interested in how you would define the difference between a sailboat and a sailing kayak if it goes beyond the stock hull design pitch, but much of the rest of this is just repetitive and tiresome. I know it is for me and must be for any on the rest of the list that stayed awake to the end as well. Mark *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************Received on Fri Nov 26 1999 - 22:34:24 PST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:30:17 PDT