Re:[Paddlewise] Paul Caffyn and rudders

Caveat: my brother and I design Mariner Kayaks, so might have an axe to
grind here.
I would like to suggest that all paddlers see things from their own limited
experience and perspective (I include myself here). They change their kayak
in some way and see what those changes did to how their kayak handled for
them with their own skills and ability level. Or they get another kayak and
compare it to their first one and then decide that it was the differences
they noticed that made the differences in handling they observe. Next they
generalize that (likely wrong) judgment and attribute those design
differences they noticed to have the same effects on the handling of all
kayaks when in reality they lack enough evidence to understand what is
really making for the differences they feel and just grasped on to the
easily noticed differences in design for an explanation. In essence they
generalize from this little bit of knowledge and experience and try to paint
all kayaks with the same wide brush. This creates all sorts of unnecessary
arguments. Paddlers whose limited experience with their own or maybe a few
other kayaks (that handle differently in the first place, I might add, than
the guys they are arguing with's much different kayaks). This becomes much
like the six blind men describing the elephant. The reality is that the
addition of a rudder or skeg may create different results depending a lot on
the kayak that was started with.

Gerald Foodman asked Doug Lloyd:

> >>>I would be most interested in your impressions of the Mariner II,
> in big
> water, especially compared to your own Nordkapp.>>>

Doug Lloyd responded with a bunch of surmises based on what he has seen or
heard from others who owned different model Mariner kayaks than the one
Gerald asked about. From Doug's answer it seems clear that he hasn't paddled
even the Mariners he talks about at all much less in rough conditions. He
describes only what he has heard and seen from others and compares them with
himself in his kayak (when they have different sizes strengths and skills as
well as different boats) rather than comparing what he has himself
experienced using the two different boats in the same conditions (and
answering the question asked). But the kayaks he tells us about (others
experiences in rather than his own) aren't even the boat he is asked about.
There is another possible confounding that could cause a serious problem in
making comparisons between kayaks. The kayak you are intimately familiar
with due to a long association (and in Doug's case--numerous modifications
of it to suit him as best he can) is going to feel right and any new kayak
you try is going to not feel quite right even if it is better in many ways
(unless it is so superior that the differences are immediately obvious even
without the custom fitting and familiarity that are yet to come if you do
switch boats). First time I'd try some new skis I would almost always like
the old ones I was familiar with better. After a few runs to a few days I
often came to prefer the new ones. I do recall a pair of Hart Competitions I
demo'd though that were obviously better from the first turn because they
were such a superior handling ski (and probably responded somewhat similarly
yet even better than the ones I had been using).

Doug never gets close enough to having this problem because he hasn't even
used the boats he is pontificating on much less the one that he was
questioned on. I certainly don't doubt Doug is a very skilled paddler as is
Paul Caffyn. Both have paddled many times as far as I have in the last 25
years. What they lack, however, is experience in a wide variety of kayaks.
There experience mostly comes from making modifications to one or a few
kayaks. For his trip around new Zealand's South Island (described in his
book "Obscured by Waves") Paul Caffyn modified a Nordkapp HS (rounded raked
stern keel--1st version) by adding a skeg he could slip over the pointed
stern. This increased tracking and reduced weatherhelm and would slip off
again for entry and exit through the surf zone or when he needed a more
maneuverable kayak.
Later for his trip around Australia (as described in "Dreamtime Voyage") I
believe he started with a Nordkapp HM (deep thin fin with sharp cornered
stern--very stiff tracking and hard to turn--but don't weatherhelm--does
have an annoying tendency to be unable to keep from broaching once it starts
in the slightest though--but blessedly does not exhibit the wild sideways
skid of many kayaks when they broach--just a progressive turn you can't do
much about until it is finished and you are going sideways to the direction
you wanted to go--and then risk getting a hernia trying to crank that stiff
tracking mother back on course or up into a strong wind--I have no doubt
that this had something to do with both Paul and Doug cutting much of the
keel off their HM's and then adding a rudder to help control the
weathercocking they just induced by cutting the keel--and to help control
the still difficult to control slow broach in following seas). Yes, having
experienced an HM (with a slightly modified already by the owner, keel)
surfing boat wakes and wind waves I too would probably add a rudder to it
(one with a very deep blade and some kind of solid foot pedals--I'm on your
side on this one Alex--saw a lot of weird and hokey rudders at some kayak
shops in NZ last fall but while most sterns looked kind of awkward compared
to a Feathercraft rudder I had to admire the solid footpedals standard
evident down there, I detest sliding pedals--there goes most of the leg
power out of my stroke. note: unfortunately, I didn't get to paddle any of
them--whirlwind tour--did take some names, measurements and pictures though
when I could)

Doug's response to Gerald:

>>We don't get many Mariners up here, unless they are owned by Americans
coming up to the west coast to paddle. The price for a Mariner these
days for a Canadian to buy one, with the exchange, is very expensive. I
have paddled with a fellow who had an original Mariner, which is a bit
different than the Mariner II or the Max. It was a lovely boat in open
water. Where the problem lay was in situations like whilst paddling down
a long inlet with rear quartering wind but no real wave action to shadow
behind. <<

So what was the problem there? I don't remember a problem in that condition
(was a little like a Nordkapp in following seas though, hard to stop a slow
progressive broach once it started (but much easier to turn back down wind
and was able to start turning back downwind starting from less of a broach
angle too.) Gerald, Mariner II improved on the original Mariner here by
being more maneuverable and able to correct a broach from a greater sideways
angle.

Back to what Doug wrote "responding" to Gerald's question:

>>He got sick and tired of the adjustable seat thing, and
eventually put a rudder on the darn boat -- a sacrilege perhaps, but you
do what ya gotta do. (BTW, the Max can  be harder to get into for tall
guys as the deck doesn't sweep up as much, but memory fails me here a
bit).<<

Doug, you have this way of reading others emotions (or at least thinking you
can). I'd love to hear from this paddler himself. I'd like to ask him if he
was "sick and tired" of it and if so what made him so (and also why does his
friend Doug call it a "darn" boat and was this Mariner made that was made in
Canada or in the U.S.? If I recall correctly the Canadian boats had somewhat
different seat arrangements.

Doug, you were asked to compare the handling in rough condition between your
(much modified to suit you) Nordkapp and a Mariner II. Since it appears you
have not paddled a Mariner II in rough conditions if at all, you don't tell
us that but instead tell us just about everything you have seen, heard, or
believe about Mariner kayaks to the point where your memory starts to fail
you. You even go so far as to make comparisons between a Mariner I and a Max
regarding ease of entry for a tall paddler when you yourself are short. I'd
guess this tall paddler might have bought a Nordkapp had he been able to
shoehorn himself into its cockpit at all. I know you were once very critical
of big cockpits and believed that paddlers would be thrown out of them to
there deaths when looped in breaking seas (as one then Nordkapp distributor
had speculated about in an accident report without one shred of evidence to
support that scenario)--and that you supported his impossible conclusions in
your writings for another Nordkapp distributor's club when you criticized my
lack of mentioning this big cockpit defect in an accident report for Sea
Kayaker after you had swallowed that red herring whole). Now you make the
slightly smaller tighter fitting cockpit on the Max seem hard to enter for a
big paddler that BTW probably couldn't even fit into your kayaks cockpit.
E-gads!
Doug, I am curious as to who it was put the rudder on the Mariner up there
(I need to put a name on the voodoo doll) as I am unaware of that one yet
(and BTW that would be only the second paddler I know of who has put a
rudder on an original Mariner--the other is in Norway). The owner of the
first Mariner II we ever sold was also the only Mariner II owner that I know
of to get a rudder installed on a Mariner II (and staying with these
threads, he did it for added stability rather than control because he felt
The Mariner II to be too tippy for him--even though it is a lot more stable
than a Nordkapp or Mariner I). When he sold it several years later the new
buyer of that Mariner II took the rudder off (and pasted the little end
piece back on the stern that we had cut off when we installed the rudder for
the first guy--and had  kept--maybe as a remembrance of that dark and evil
day we had installed it).

Gerald wrote:

> >>>Did you notice that Paul Caffyn mentioned in his article that the
> rudder
> added stability?  I find the opposite to be true in my Solstice GTS.
> In big
> or turbulent water I feel much more confident and in control by
> raising the
> rudder.  The rudder seems to me mainly an energy saving device for
> moderate
> conditions, when it saves a tremendous amount of energy over a long
> haul.
> Of course my big water is not your big water.>>>
>
Gerald, you and Paul are both right here. The rudder fin damps the rocking
motion of a kayak in calm water. This slowing of the tipping motion is
perceived by the paddler as more stability (although it wouldn't show up on
a static stability graph). In chaotic seas such as reflected waves
criss-crossing each other the same lever that damped a rolling motion is now
being hit by wave crests from several different directions and the fin
becomes a lever arm to transfer some of the wave energy into tipping the
kayak and knocking its stern around. It feels to me like someone has a hold
of the stern and is jerking it around in those conditions with a rudder
down.

Doug responded to Gerald's question that I responded to above:

>>"Big water" is a relative statement, as indicated. The factors I most
closely regard are wave period and the steepness of swell and wind
waves. Under certain conditions, a rudder can go way beyond an energy
saver in terms of stroke efficiency, and simply add a new dynamic of
incredible speed as one surfs every available opportunity with demon
like ferocity.<<

You should write ad copy Doug, what eloquent prose you use to make
outrageous and unsupported (or maybe even impossible) claims. I like the
under certain conditions qualifier too. What conditions? What is this new
dynamic? Do you pump the rudder pedals and have it skull back and forth like
the tail of a fish to propel the kayak to this incredible speed. (Actually,
I once thought about inventing a rudder like this for my friend Joel
Rogers--but for low speed movement and control without waving the paddle
around taking strokes that might scare the subject---for wildlife
photography).
Get real Doug, the rudder helps you stay faced down the wave when the kayak
wants to do otherwise. It does this at some added drag cost but if you can
use it to stay pointed straight down the wave and catch it rather than lose
the gravity powered ride by broaching you can grab the tail of that tiger
and really get to moving at wave speed. If your kayak didn't broach so
readily and you also didn't have to drag the rudder around to keep a broach
from happening then you could catch even faster waves because you wouldn't
have the added drag and weight of the rudder slowing your acceleration and
top speed.

Doug continued:
>> I've paddled with some fairly good paddlers in skegged
and non-skegged kayaks under open water, near gale following sea
conditions, and they couldn't even come close to keeping up with me,
when my deep draft rudder was deployed. In moderate conditions, you are
right, that is where I normally associate my rudder with being a "mainly
energy saving" device, and so to with skegs.<<

Doug, have you ever thought that this may be because you are way more
skilled at surfing than these "fairly good paddlers". This is what you live
for, remember. Yes the rudder helps correct the limitations of your kayak,
so for your kayak its added drag is worth it to you. Your friends are
considerably less skilled and probably also have kayaks that are even harder
to control in this condition than yours (and rudders that don't work as well
or been tweaked for optimal tightness like yours). I love to surf waves too
and practiced it a lot out of the sheer joy of doing it. Am get very
frustrated even in a group of pretty good paddlers when I find myself
spending half my time drifting downwind waiting for them to catch up when I
could have covered the same distance I drifted having a lot more fun surfing
the waves. Seems like such a lost opportunity. I usually paddle back into
the wind to them so I can surf off ahead again without getting too far
ahead. I remember once when I was paddling alone in Baja (after splitting
off from my friends for a couple of days to go someplace I wanted to go back
to that was beyond the range of one of them). I got to surf that fully
loaded kayak (XL) for many long rides on one wave after another without
having to stop to wait. I did this for about 15 miles in under 2 hours. I
was stoked, what a ride. I think I can understand why you like to paddle
alone Doug, no one holding you back, responsible only for yourself.  BTW I
didn't need a rudder to do this. This is the result of practicing in this
condition because it is fun. The skill to do it better just comes naturally
by doing it a lot. Since I practice doing this without a rudder and in
kayaks that do this quite well without a rudder I am probably better at this
without a rudder than you would be sans rudder. You are no doubt better at
this than I would be if I tried it with a rudder (I don't get much practice
with one, but I'm willing to admit that with a lot of kayaks a rudder can be
a big help, even for me with my limited ruddering skills). When racing
regularly years ago I always hoped for rough water and waves to surf. In
conditions like that I could beat a lot of stronger paddlers who regularly
beat me in calmer conditions. Its not the rudder Doug it is your skill (and
maybe some fast-twitch muscles) that makes the difference. I'll bet your
buddies had rudders too. Let see, there was that one near the Storm Islands
that broke his rudder and you were towing if I remember correctly. Oh, but
that was different that was into the wind.

Doug again:
<SNIP>
>> If a rudder adds stability, I've never really noticed it in terms of
a lee board or deep draft keel effect, but like Paul is always wishing,
anything that helps add stability to a Nordkapp is welcomed, even if the
discernibility is somewhat subjective. If anything though, I find a
rudder creates some problems in turbulent seas, as it tends to get
jostled around.<< <SNIP>
>>Remember, I will often head out into Juan de Fuca Strait,
looking for squall  lines and micro-bursts that spill in from the open
Pacific, to run back in to shore with. You don't go and do that with
stock equipment, nor do the _real_ experts like Paul C. take on big
coasts with ineffectual trim devices.<<

Jostles me around to, we agree on that. Yes, you do get lots of practice.
Speaking of practice and Paul Caffyn. His claims of increased mileage once
he added the rudder would be more convincing if the practice and
conditioning effect had been controlled with another subject who didn't
switch to a rudder for comparison. I suspect daily paddling distances go up
as a trip progresses for many reasons including greater efficiencies in
breaking camp and packing. It seems to me to be jumping to quite a
conclusion to say this increased mileage per day was all due to the rudder.
I'm certain that some of the extra distance was due to him modifying the
long fin skeg that made the kayak so hard to turn back on course once wind
or waves turned it off course (I believe that skeg is the word for a raised
keel--so to be correct we should use "adjustable" or "in hull drop" skeg to
differentiate that type skeg from a fixed one). Also adding the rudder to
that particular kayak probably did increase its efficiency overall even
though it did ad some extra drag too. Hard to say it would work the same for
every kayak though, "your mileage may vary".
Matt Broze (paddled over 520 different sea and recreational kayaks so
far--but most were only for a few minutes in relatively calm waters--variety
is the spice of life)
http://www.marinerkayaks.com


***************************************************************************
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/
***************************************************************************