[Paddlewise] mkayaks_at_oz.net

Matt responded to a post of mine, which I knew he would as sure as I
know the ocean is wet! (Not that that was my intention). His was a great
post, with lots of good info, lots of stuff to think about, lots of
challenging remarks). I'll respond where indicated, with  snippage as
necessary, but not indicated.

>>Caveat: my brother and I design Mariner Kayaks, so might have an ax to

grind here.>>

Matt can grind away anytime he likes on the PW list as far as I'm
concerned -- we all love hearing from him, me too!  I only wish other
designers would contribute to this list, then we could have some real
intelligent "sparks" flying (something to do with iron sharpening iron).
We know Matt and his bro are _the_ Mariner Kayaks guys, but we also know
Matt's integrity as a man supersedes his bias and financial connection,
so no problemo -- though...I did find some of Matt's comments that were
pointed toward me suggestive that he integrates  information presented
in a framework that is perhaps a bit too literal, as well as indicating
he has a few (okay, we all do!) rough edges that need some rounding off
:-)  (I also hope he didn't  have an ax to grind with me personally
because of recent back-channel activity regarding list policy and such
things.)

>>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....>>

I hope Matt is sincere in saying he is generalizing about this point. I
for one have never claimed anything beyond the scope of my limited
experience with the equipment/kayak I own, and only claim to be an
enthusiastic paddler within well defined parameters. In defense of
others on this list, most of what I read on PW indicates people give
appropriate qualifiers, caveats, or otherwise leave it to the
intelligence of the reader to correctly contextualize what is being said
about that person's experience with certain boats, etc. I have to have
faith in people's intelligence on this list as a whole, or what's the
point of even trying to exchange ideas. I will admit that Jerry knows
well my aversion to posting about other kayak designs, given that we
have had back-channel discussions where it was indicated  that it is
just too easy to get into trouble when one posts comments like I made,
given the sensitivities of certain individuals. It's all _Jerry's _
fault <g>, you see -- though his real question was more pointed; but if
I had just said "sorry Jer, don't know nothin 'bout the Mariner II",
that would have been the end of it, and that would be no fun!

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...>>

Like duh, yeah, that was the point of my posting.  I have not paddled a
'Mariner Kayaks' kayak. I was simply stating the sum of my knowledge
about them, which isn't very much, and is all based mostly on what I've
been told. I am not a malicious person, and relayed to the list what
little info I had, as that is what we do on PW. I should mention that
when I do get out to Brooks Peninsula to do some serious fringe
paddling, all the 'Mariner Kayaks' boats are on the beach, with their
American owners reading volumes of paperbacks and drinking vino telling
me how easy it was to get to Brooks by "sneaking" in close on the
logging roads. So, I don't get to see many in action, sorry. I'm sure
the kayaks are capable. So are people going to imply I'm running down a
certain brand of kayak by saying this? Am I trying to make myself look
better or convey some kind of chauvinistic Brit boat thing? No! I'm just
conveying in words, what my observations have been thus far.

In my original post, did people miss my comment that the Mariner kayak
owner I was quoting in my post said it was a fine boat in big, open
water -- guess that doesn't count, as it is second hand?. And if I
included comments in my post not precisely asked for regarding a
specific kayak, that is my privilege to expound on such. Who in the heck
has the right to tell me I can't do otherwise, or that I can't  augment
my comments? And no, I can't compare boats adequately, never said I
could. If I were to be able to do that, I'd have to spend years in a
Mariner II getting equivalent skill and comfort, then take both it and
my boat out for a & b comparisons. Not really possible, let alone with
500 other available models of kayaks. Matt's reply went on to illuminate
this conundrum anybody faces with boat comparisons, so why did he
presume I and possibly some of the readership were unaware of these
factors? Gad, were not that stupid.

>>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...>>

Pontificating? Love that comment!. Man,  I'm just a minuscule piece of
turd floating around in the sea of life (though not rudderless  <vbg>).
I'm amused anyone listens to me when there are much bigger pieces
bobbing around, jostling to off-gas more than me! Anyway, I wish I
really could pontificate over  at least one or two other kayaks,
including one of the superior examples of a North American kayak, namely
one of the 'Mariner Kayaks'. (but how do I know they are good, eh?) That
would mean I'd have to own one, for which I would be delighted to have
another kayak in my fleet of only one. Of course Matt is right, though I
have tried out a few kayaks in my day, I always go back to what I love
-- my low-volume, low-windage Nordkapp that is an extension of my body
and skill-sets. At least I'm not as bad as Paul, who told Chris Duff
straight-faced that Chris would not make it around NZ unless he did it
in a Nordkapp. For all the exposed miles Paul has paddled, he really can
be a bit "sheltered" at times, but who has the bloody right to tell him
that, considering his accomplishments?.


>>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)...>>

A couple of things here. I've been trying to tell Matt for years and
years that I don't have an HM Nordkapp. I wasn't that stupid. I bought
the HS version on purpose, without the built-in-
non-moving-keel-fin-skeg-thing. I learned to paddle it first, which
wasn't easy as it broaches terribly without a fin/skeg/rudder, but was
great in rock gardens (relative to the skegged version, that is). I
added the rudder only after destroying all my shoulder tendons from the
difficult effort expended (this is meant literally). I hope Matt will
note once and for all that I bought a Standard Hull Nordkapp.  Also note
a rather interesting point for your fact-files: the VCP dealer in
Victoria orders his Nordkapps with the built-in-fin-skeg _and_the
retractable skeg. Go figure. The factory has to special make these for
this dealer, as no one else orders them that way. The proprietor does
not paddle, but insists this is the hot set-up!

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.>>

Maybe the person tried to tell Matt about the problem and he just didn't
listen, or my friend couldn't handle Matt's 6 hour explanations :-) And
the person that gave me the Mariner One feedback was a skilled paddler
with a lot of miles under his belt - lots of "stick" time as a good
friend of mine puts it. I'm just telling you what the paddler said. Is
that pontificating on my part? Gerry has bugged me no end in the past
for tidbits. I was just trying to be a nice compliant, mannered
Canadian, eh. I'm not sure what kind of sliding seat it had in it, but
the paddler in question did not indicate to me his preference to
continue with such a system. I personally have no idea how the sliding
seat system pans out in real world kayaking, but it does sound
intriguing -- I do it a bit when I'm surfing to catch waves by sliding
my butt forward a bit and leaning well forward.

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.>>

Again, I was just repeating what the paddler said. Matt has a lovely way
about him too! It must be an engineer sort of thing to "unread" emotions
out of  what people say. Okay, so this person _didn't_ say "sick and
tired" exactly. It was more like  the paddler "didn't appreciate the
corrective maneuvering and tiring paddle sweeps required to hold a
consistent course in the direction of intended travel" and so eventually
installed a rudder, but then eventually bought a different kayak, but
not before looking into the newer Mariners to which one of them proved
too tippy for the notable tallness of the individual in question, and
the Max, well,  it was difficult to get in to. Does the messenger get
shot again? Besides, I was painting a picture of a man who wanted to
_stay_ with the Mariner line, really! He loved them --  the quality, the
appearance, the overall engineering, etc, but it just didn't work out
for this dude. And I get blamed for casting the Mariner's in a bad
light. That was not my intention. I was actually trying to make mariner
boats look good. Shows you how easy it is to srew yourself on this
list.  Oh yeah, the "darn" word:  that was subconscious association by
frustration (Matt called this type of action a "dark and evil day" later
in his response - now that's emotive). I  thought it was a darn shame
too, to have to add a rudder to my kayak that was supposed to not need a
rudder according to the fundamentalist preacher from the church of the
rudderless British kayak store -- sorry for retrojeting my frustration
into the post about the mariner -- but, I did sense it in the persons
voice regarding their own conversion, perspicaciously if you will.

>>...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!>>

I knew Matt would get me back for cockpit thing, one day! Ah, I miss the
old days, when all the arguments were mostly over wide vs narrow kayaks,
though I know it comes up on PW now and again. How much more complex it
is today, with all the lines blurred as so many kayak makers offer a
variety of kayaks in their line-ups. Well, one thing is for sure, Matt's
memory hasn't faded. Honestly? I don't think the big cockpit issue was
an issue at all in that incident those many years ago. It may have been
part of a preliminary hypothesis with respect to possible contributory
factors, then got blown out of proportion by folks who would have been
better to have stuck to paddling (or in one case, just even started
paddling!). I told the list about a fellow who crawled onto some rocks
off Oak Bay a few weeks ago, and I mentioned I would compare it to a
similar incident from years ago (the one Matt dredges up). I never got
around to digging out the old newsletter to post it, as I've been too
busy. Now I wish I had. I was going to mention cockpit size as not being
a definitive factor. However. Cockpit size is a consideration, and I
would have still highlighted my opinion, even if only in a general way.
Ask anyone who has tried to roll or scull from a big cockpit that hasn't
had a bit of custom padding, etc. I stand by this assertion, that it
_can_ factor in, in some cases , and I'll stand by that until my gray
matter is shriveled up and withered away. What this has to do with the
Mariner Max , my friend, my Nordkapp comments, and my post to Jerry and
the list, heaven only knows what Matt is going on about. It certainly
doesn't factor into my post. There are Red Herrings, and then there are
Dead Herrings!


>>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...>>

Naw, Matt can just stick pins in a doll of me (no one can make me hurt
anymore than I already have from kayaking), or I can even send Matt a
pic of me and my ruddered Nordkapp, along with some darts. Or matt can
even make me look as bad as he wants to on the Storm Island rescue as he
has me by the balls. But it doesn't matter, Andrew and I know what
really went down out there (so does Matt in his heart, despite what he
says to his buddy Tom). I do have a pic of my friend who owned the
ruddered Mariner I, but the individual is head-and-shoulders above the
likes of me and even Matt. The unnamed individual is kind-hearted,
sincere, gracious, non-vindictive, and doesn't deserve any negative
incantations -- vodoo or otherwise.

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.>>

That was kind of my point too. Just about the time you appreciate the
stability (dampening effect) of the rudder in gnarly stuff, you loose it
to the jostling effect. "Gnarly stuff" is also a rather subjective term
however. I do not use my rudder in moving water play, and actually it
resides atop of my deck most of the time, balancing windage from the bow
of my kayak.

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.>>

Sorry, but Matt is the "ad copy" expert. Everyone on the list who has
read his literature knows that to be a fact (and it is very informative
in all honesty -- should be required reading for everyone for the safety
info, etc). So, I'm making outrageous and unsupported comments? I
thought I was simply telling Jerry my experience with my kayak. Even if
no one else can attest to these types of experience (which I'm sure many
down-under could), it is still _my_ experience.

>>I like the under certain conditions qualifier too. What conditions? >>

AND
>>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.>>


That's just the point. It wasn't a blanket qualifier. In a  near fully
developed 2 meter sea with breaking whitecaps on the stern, the extra
effort expended to stay with the ride pays huge dividends in forward
propulsion and net ground covered.  I was simply trying to reinforce the
notion that a good rudder can be so much more than just simply a tool
for trim maintenance. I wasn't trying to suggest some fantabulous
revelation. Somebody give me a break, for Pete's sake! I'm not a rudder
zealot making outlandish remarks. If you can achieve what you want out
there without a rudder, then  "IT'S GREAT " as Tony the Tiger would
say.  With my rudder set-up, I _don't_ get faster rides on smaller
waves, or if I do with the rudder down, I often out-run the wave and/or
start to broach, at which point, one has to do a lot of peddel-play,
which just isn't worth it. Conversely, on really big, steep wave faces
of huge following seas that are breaking in deep water, or when surfing
in-shore breaks, even a deep-draft rudder (as in my application and
experience) does not prevent a broach and you need to go slow, flowing
with the event. But _under certain conditions_ it works superbly, for
ME. How do I express this in any planer words?  How about, "A well
designed deep-draft rudder can powerfully potentiate an open water
paddler for down-wind, down-wave running under favorable conditions
conducive to utilizing gravity driven and wave-pushed mechanics, rather
than just provide the usual steering and course correction most people
commonly associate a rudder with". If I can't communicate what I mean
here, I mind as well just go and shoot myself.


>>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.>>

That's what I meant, as noted above. Matt, and possibly others, are
reading _way_ too much into what I write. The rudder gives me the
ability to hold on the face of the wave. Smaller waves no. Really steep
waves, no. I'm sure there are kayaks made that can do what I describe
without a rudder, but the second you have to start concentrating on
corrective strokes, edging, etc, you can also loose efficiency. You have
to expend a lot of energy to stay ahead of this game when surfing open
water waves, but you do get big returns as mentioned. It's, errr, just
unreal man!.

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.>>

Partially. I do a fair bit of it. I love going out on a stormy day to
meet the Coho and race her back in, or better yet, the Anacortes Ferry
-- basically anything American, so I can show-off to those on board just
how crazy us canucks really are, and dispel any notion of American
superiority. I've gone out to meet the deep see freighters too, but not
much since I've been married. Anyhow, the guys I'm thinking of that are
"fairly good paddlers" are really good. They move through the water with
zen like efficiency, grace and power,  and are much more technically
inclined than an animal like myself (thee guys were not the same ones
from the Storm Island report). In the situation Ii was describing in my
post, a deep sea  freighter was bearing down on us as we pushed hard for
Estavan Point across Nootka Sound. The guys wanted to wait. I said we
could easily beat it. I was surprised they couldn't muster the speed
with their skegged kayaks. Once they ran-off a wave, it was difficult to
realign - not so for myself with the deep draft rudder.  I had to keep
circling back, which was kind of fun cresting head-long over and into
the waves, annoying them no end.

>>Yes the rudder helps correct the limitations of your kayak... 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...>>

Yeap, that is your experience, your preference, your choice, your
practice, and your enjoyment. I'm sure there are more like you who can
paddle as such, with aplomb, without a rudder. I will come visit your
church some day. I may convert. I hate my rudder and would love to shed
it off, if I could achieve the same results with something else, and
develop the particular skills to do it. One of my "skeg buddies" on the
first day out of a trip turned to me and said, "why are you using that
rudder? I could teach you how to paddle without it". The next day he was
crapping bricks, sea sick, and said he wanted the hell out of there
(North Brooks on a big west swell with an inlet ebb). I was comfy,
having fun, tracking true, wondering what all the fuss was about, as I
thought conditions were normal. It is all what one is used to, which is
Matt's point, but it is mine too!

>>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.>>

The wind and waves were quartering, enough to need the rudders deployed.
Two of the paddlers could have gotten by without rudders, but why not
use 'em if you got them for efficiency in a long slog. One of the
paddlers couldn't paddle properly without their rudder, which became
painfully apparent. Had we all had kayaks that didn't require rudders,
and had we all been effective paddlers without ruddered kayaks, it may
have been a happier time. I sure as heck hope Matt keeps his bias out of
the Storm Island report if it ever gets the go-ahead. And I hope Matt
shows a modicum of empathy, grace, understanding, and has his ax fully
sharpened before completing the article.

Well, sorry to drag everyone through this (if you are still with this
post). It is late Friday night (Saturday morning now actually, 4:00 am.)
I'll wait till Monday to post if I still feel like sending my reply to
Matt's reply. Part of me just wants to ignore Matt. The last time we
talked about rudders on this list in a major way,  he got really rude
with Rev Bob regarding some rudder comments Bob made. Sometimes it is
best to turn the other cheek to the heathen unruddered :-)

BC'in Ya
Doug Lloyd (who says at least this discussion was more interesting than
counting holes on my Nordkapp!)


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