Hi all... The other day someone posted a message about an article by Paul Caffyn on the subject of rudders and skegs. Direct URL is <www.watertribe.com/Magazine/May012000/May00Caffyn.asp> He doesn't say anything new in this piece, basing it on experiences during his Australian circumnavigation. Tasmanians might raise their eyebrows his account of the origin of his rudder: in fact it was made in Tasmania by Tony Gaiswinkler, who took measurements from an original by Laurie Ford, the person who devised the idea of 270 deg retracting rudders in 1981 (and receives no royalties from all those manufacturers of his idea). 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. At one point in the article Paul quotes: [the rudder] 'not for steering, but to trim. Sea kayaks are steered with the paddle, like all kayaks and canoes.' As the author of that I can give it to you in full: '2 The word 'steer' is used here for convenience. The rudder is not for steering, but to trim. Sea kayaks are steered with the paddle, like all kayaks and canoes.' It's a footnote to a piece I wrote for the newsletter of the Victorian Sea Kayak Club: Carter, P 'More on Fins', in Sewell, C (Ed) SeaTrek, 22, February 1996, VSKC if you want the formal citation. It was based on a paper I had written earlier: the current version is at <users.senet.com.au/~pcarter/dirstab.html>. I met, and paddled with, Paul on a couple of occasions before and during the circumnavigation. One morning we briefly discussed kayak directional stability. My understanding of the dynamics has increased greatly since then: I sometimes wonder if Paul's has. Paul may now steer with his rudder, but he took to rudders to fix a directional stability problem, not to change direction. Cheers, Peter pcarter_at_acslink.net.au allegedly <www.acslink.net.au/~pcarter> temporarily <users.senet.com.au/~pcarter> 34deg 55' 30" S 138deg 32' 4" E *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
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.>> 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). Matt Broze 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/ ***************************************************************************
Matt Broze said:" <mkayaks_at_oz.net> Subject: Re:[Paddlewise] Paul Caffyn's article <snip> >>>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).>>> I've been out in big, difficult seas with a number of different paddlers in different kinds of kayaks (the other kayakers, that is). All were highly skilled. The kayaks that tracked best with the least amount of effort on the part of the paddler were the hard chine boats with a skeg well toward amidships (as opposed the the usual anemic location most manufactures place them). The other kayak that excelled was my own kayak with the deep draft rudder; but on one occasion it failed, and I had a difficult time keeping up with the other guys in quartering seas, due to the lost effort of sweep stroke corrections and the inability to really set a round bilge hull way out on edge for better directional control in nasty conditions. I'd still like to get out and see what those Mariner boys can do in real world conditions. 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/ ***************************************************************************
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/ ***************************************************************************
Harold 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. Though that wasn't the problem he encountered in Australia. >> It should also be noted that Paul's rudder was an >> extremely long one compared with most rudders on kayaks today. Longer than something like the one on the Prijon Seayak which barely touches the water. Not really longer than we fit in New Zealand on production boats. >> His could >> reach the water on steep following seas where most stern mounted rudders >> cannot at that critical time where a broach begins. We aren't actually talking about broaching, we're talking about keeping the kayak in a straight line hour after hour with every stroke a power stroke, no wasted sweep strokes. We're talking about minimal energy for maximum result in all conditions, conditions which aren't necessarily steady, lumpy seas, gusting winds, etc. >> 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). Which is why one of our designers puts his rudders on the side of the kayak. > Unfortunately, his experimentation, as reported in his books, >probably set the proliferation of skegs as a viable kayak trimming devise >back 50 years. Rubbish. One thing he tried very hard to get changed were the sliding steering pedals - he made no impression on the North American industry. How/why do you think his comments would make any difference to skeg development? A rudder can be considered to be a "fully" developed skeg. > Even worse, others have gleefully pointed at Paul's >experience as an argument against true skegs without bothering to research >how they work. Have they? >Peter and Matt are two examples of kayakers who walk the walk. And Paul has gone out there and paddled, don't forget that. Round New Zealand, round Britain, round Japan, round Australia, round the seaboard of Alaska, round New Caledonia, up the coast of Greenland - that's some REAL paddling (in distance terms). Alex . . Alex (Sandy) Ferguson Chemistry Department University of Canterbury New Zealand *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
In a message dated 5/9/00 6:45:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time, a.ferguson_at_chem.canterbury.ac.nz writes: > Harold wrote - Thanks for your reply Alex, but for clarity, I only wrote a small amount of what you responded to. Please don't credit me with the statements that I quoted from Peter and Matt. > Harold > > Unfortunately, his experimentation, as reported in his books, > >probably set the proliferation of skegs as a viable kayak trimming devise > >back 50 years. > Alex > Rubbish. One thing he tried very hard to get changed were the sliding > steering pedals - he made no impression on the North American industry. > How/why do you think his comments would make any difference to skeg > development? I think it is much harder to get someone in production to change something than it is to persuade them to keep on with the status quo. Persuading the industry to produce boats with skegs or to change to non-sliding rudder controls are both examples of diverting from the status quo. Both manufacturers and those in the market will shy away from anything that is unestablished and controversial. All I'm saying is that Paul used a design that is nothing like the well-designed and configured skegs of many Brit, CD or WS offerings (among others). > Alex > A rudder can be considered to be a "fully" developed skeg. Guess it depends on your viewpoint. To me they are two different animals trying to accomplish two different things. Both can get the job done, but they are way different. Thinking that one is an expression of the other will result in bad designs of both. > Harold > > Even worse, others have gleefully pointed at Paul's > >experience as an argument against true skegs without bothering to research > >how they work. > Alex > Have they? Sorry I can't point you to examples, but Yes. I have seen this misinformation in many places. Again, all I'm saying is that we should try to fully research and understand the cause and effect relationship of systems like rudders and skegs before spreading the holy word. > Harold > >Peter and Matt are two examples of kayakers who walk the walk. > Alex > And Paul has gone out there and paddled, don't forget that. He has paddled and he has contributed a great deal to kayaking -- as has Matt. I'm sorry if you misunderstood me. There are those who "talk the talk" and then there are those who "walk the walk". The former indicates someone who works only on theory, the latter statement means the person gets out there and does what he says. Its a compliment, as I meant it for Peter and Matt. Both rudders and skegs can be considered usable tools to be carried in the back of your kayak and used when conditions warrant, to contribute an added bit of control to your craft or to reduce overall energy output. I won't try to support a holy war on the subject as I believe it is up to the individual to select one, the other or none of the above. I do come quickly to the defense of skegs only because they are my choice, and they are not offered on many of the boats that I might otherwise select or recommend. I would like to see all kayaks offered bare or with skeg or rudder as a choice. *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
In a message dated 5/10/00 8:09:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time, HTERVORT_at_aol.com writes: > > > Alex > > And Paul has gone out there and paddled, don't forget that. > Harold > He has paddled and he has contributed a great deal to kayaking -- as has > Matt. I'm sorry if you misunderstood me. There are those who "talk the > talk" and then there are those who "walk the walk". The former indicates > someone who works only on theory, the latter statement means the person gets > > out there and does what he says. Its a compliment, as I meant it for Peter > and Matt. > Ooops. Sorry, I improperly read "Peter" instead of "Paul". My hurried reply was referring to Peter and Matt, not Paul and Matt. I should never reply before a second reading AND a second cup of coffee. Yes, Paul Caffyn has done much and I have enjoyed reading some of his books about his incredible trips. Not taking anything from him or his accomplishments, I would like to point out that those who accomplish the most out in the field may not necessarilly be the ones that understand the physics behind why their boats are reacting the way they do. I can accept the validity of Paul's reports about the differences he felt with his different boats. He wrote about what he found, and I wouldn't dispute that. What I don't agree with are some of the conclusions that were drawn, either by Paul or others, from his observations. You cannot draw accurate conclusions about the effectiveness of properly-designed adjustable skegs from observations of the equipment Paul used. 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/ ***************************************************************************
Hi all... I've now had a private message from Paul Caffyn explaining the source of his first rudder: he and a colleague made it before the one from Tasmania arrived. The Tasmanians had always insisted that it was theirs he used... Changing the subject slightly, I've just seen George Dyson's article 'The Aleutian Kayak' in the April issue of Scientific American. At one point Dyson speculates whether the Aleuts used their ballast stones to tune the pitching, hogging and sagging of their boats to suit the conditions, but admits 'Experiments to test this hypothesis have not been done.' (p 69) Did they, I wonder, use the stones to trim the baidarkas to run straight downwind: obviously a mechanically simpler solution than rudders or fins. To change the subject yet again: anyone care to comment on the effectiveness of the new Dagger rudder? Cheers, Peter pcarter_at_acslink.net.au allegedly <www.acslink.net.au/~pcarter> temporarily <users.senet.com.au/~pcarter> 34deg 55' 30" S 138deg 32' 4" E *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
> -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Carter [mailto:pcarter_at_acslink.net.au] snip > Did they, I wonder, use the stones to trim the baidarkas to > run straight > downwind: obviously a mechanically simpler solution than > rudders or fins. > This begs the question of whether they used Genuine Canadian Ballast Rocks or simply the more readily avaiable Alaskan Balast Rocks. If Professor Inverbon were around I'm sure he could shed some light on the subject. Dave Seng Juneau, Alaska *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:13 PDT