PaddleWise by thread

From: Kevin Whilden <kevin_at_yourplanetearth.org>
subject: [Paddlewise] Chines debate baffles me
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 19:19:10 -0800
I am a little puzzled by the endless debate over which is more stable in a 
kayak, sharp or soft chines.

To me this is akin to asking whether a race car is faster because it is 
painted blue or red. It is volume that makes a kayak have stability, not 
chines. Volume can be displaced arbitrarily according to the designer 
whims, contributing primary/secondary stability (or lack thereof). Chines, 
be they round or hard, can indeed affect where the volume is placed, thus 
affecting stability, but the hardness of the chine has no effect.

Okay, since this is Paddlewise,  I have to make sure that all possible 
loopholes in my argument are sealed, or else suffer the consequences, right? :)

Loophole #1:  All else being equal, if a hard chine boat had its chines 
rounded off with a grinder sledgehammer or something, then it would have 
slightly less volume and thus stability would not be the same. But I don't 
have to be Matt Broze to tell you that a clever designer can get around 
this issue easily by adding ever so slightly more volume elsewhere.

Loophole #2: My arguments are not as solid if the kayak is moving or the 
water is tilted (e.g. waves). When surfing, hard chines certainly 
contribute an added element of stability because they resist broaching more 
than rounded chines.

Loophole #3: Some styles of kayaks, be they hard or soft chined, Greenland, 
British, American, etc, are designed to have certain stability 
characteristics. This could lead to confusion if one begins to associate 
the chine design with the stability properties of that particular style.

I hope there's not a chink in my armor.... :)

Kevin


***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************
From: 735769 <735769_at_ican.net>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Chines debate baffles me
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 08:12:00 -0500
Kevin wrote:

(SNIP)
> Loophole #2: My arguments are not as solid if the kayak is moving or the
> water is tilted (e.g. waves). When surfing, hard chines certainly
> contribute an added element of stability because they resist broaching
more
> than rounded chines.

Round bilge boats can do the same thing. Just depends upon design.

Cheers,

John Winters






***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************
From: Matt Broze <mkayaks_at_oz.net>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Chines debate baffles me
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 00:22:19 -0800
Kevin wrote:

(SNIP)
> Loophole #2: My arguments are not as solid if the kayak is moving or the
> water is tilted (e.g. waves). When surfing, hard chines certainly
> contribute an added element of stability because they resist broaching
more
> than rounded chines.

John wrote:

>>>>Round bilge boats can do the same thing. Just depends upon design.<<<<<

Okay John, I can think of several ways this might be so and still maintain
round bilges: Lots of V--or a raised keel or rib (skeg--for you NA's) in the
stern quarters, a drop skeg or fixed fin in the stern quarter, a fin keel,
stern quarter bilge keels, stern quarter mounted lee boards, a radically
fish-form/narrow hull combination, lots of rocker in the forebody only, a
stern heavy trim (either through cockpit placement or ballast), and a deep
draft or underslung rudder. Were you thinking of any others I missed? While
what you said is true, I often get frustrated when you make vague statements
like the above without explaining why YOU believe it is so, or giving us any
examples that help make your point. I for one, would like to hear how you
address this issue. For instance, is there anything you have done on one of
your designs, like say the QCC 500, to resist broaching.

Matt Broze
http://www.marinerkayaks.com



***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************
From: 735769 <735769_at_ican.net>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Chines debate baffles me
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 08:50:41 -0500
Matt wrote:


> >>>>Round bilge boats can do the same thing. Just depends upon
design.<<<<<
>
> Okay John, I can think of several ways this might be so and still maintain
> round bilges: Lots of V--or a raised keel or rib (skeg--for you NA's) in
the
> stern quarters, a drop skeg or fixed fin in the stern quarter, a fin keel,
> stern quarter bilge keels, stern quarter mounted lee boards, a radically
> fish-form/narrow hull combination, lots of rocker in the forebody only, a
> stern heavy trim (either through cockpit placement or ballast), and a deep
> draft or underslung rudder. Were you thinking of any others I missed?
While
> what you said is true, I often get frustrated when you make vague
statements
> like the above without explaining why YOU believe it is so, or giving us
any
> examples that help make your point.

Matt, thanks for adding the detail. I regret that you get frustrated.


> I for one, would like to hear how you
> address this issue. For instance, is there anything you have done on one
of
> your designs, like say the QCC 500, to resist broaching.

Matt, you know full well that I refuse and always have refused to discuss my
designs on the mailing list or on newsgroups. I do not believe this is the
place to do promotional work or thinly veiled advertising.

I know others disagree with me but quite frankly, I don't care.  I have my
principles and  I try to stick to them but, not being perfect, I sometime
error. When do I apologise.

Matt, I sense from your recent posts that you have gotten testy and somewhat
personal over my not agreeing with you. Once that happens meaningful
dialogue becomes difficult to achieve so, I withdraw from this discussion.

Cheers,

John Winters





***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:19 PDT