In a message dated 5/8/00 1:08:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time, mkayaks_at_oz.net writes: >> Peter Carter wrote: >> There is an important point to remember about Paul's article: he is >> describing a detachable fin, one that could be either on or off. In common >> with many other on/off devices it had two effects: too much, or too little. >> >> It was not a retractable fin with infinite adjustment between up or full >> down that allows the boat to be trimmed to run straight of its own accord. >> When such a boat is properly trimmed it needs no correcting strokes to hold >> a heading. There is a world of difference between what Paul describes and >> the fin systems in current use.>> >> > Matt Broze wrote: > I agree, but think it should also be noted that Paul's "skeg" was mounted at > the back of the kayak (kind of slipped over the back point) where, like most > rudders, it was popping in and out of the water in steep waves that lift the > ends of the kayak. It should also be noted that Paul's rudder was an > extremely long one compared with most rudders on kayaks today. His could > reach the water on steep following seas where most stern mounted rudders > cannot at that critical time where a broach begins. Give me a good drop skeg > mounted further forward from the stern any day (even though many have > problems of there own I won't go into here). > Thanks to Peter and Matt for finally debunking Paul's "findings". I have always questioned exactly what his jury-rigged "skegs" were like. In his books, they sounded to me like fixed rudders instead of skegs, as Peter & Matt describes Unfortunately, his experimentation, as reported in his books, probably set the proliferation of skegs as a viable kayak trimming devise back 50 years. Even worse, others have gleefully pointed at Paul's experience as an argument against true skegs without bothering to research how they work. I guess we all need to take this as a lesson. We all have preferences in the various areas of rudder v skeg, SOT v SinK, feather v straight, etc. It is important to not rehash and repeat arguments we have heard without researching and trying various approaches in various conditions until we really understand both sides of an issue. Jumping on someone else's PC wagon in support of something we don't understand can only cause more confusion. Peter and Matt are two examples of kayakers who walk the walk. Harold So Cal *************************************************************************** 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 Tue May 09 2000 - 11:10:14 PDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:30:24 PDT