"D. Scanlan" dscanlan_at_shaw.ca <mailto:dscanlan_at_shaw.ca> wrote: <SNIP>>>>>>>>One of my paddling buds said he thought my boat could have been looking a bit nose heavy. I might have had a little more gear than usual up front ( 10 lbs) but it didn't feel any different in the water.<<<<<<<<<< Yes it did feel different. You described that difference as the weathercocking problem your post was about. It is very easy to load a kayak too bow heavy. Aim for twice as much gear weight behind you as in front of you in order to maintain a level trim. The space available often makes this hard to do so always load heavy dense items in the back and less dense items in the front. Imagine you are sitting on a teeter-totter with your center of gravity (about at your bellybutton when sitting in a kayak) over the fulcrum with your feet to one end and back to the other. Because your feet stick out so far on the teeter-totter to one side of the fulcrum any weight you add in front of you will be placed further out on the teeter-totter (just like the bigger guy has to move in further to balance the lighter guy). The same weight in front of your feet in a kayak will do more to sink that end than weight just behind your back closer to the ^Ófulcrum^Ô. Even if you manage to keep your trim level a gear load is likely to increase weatherhelm because the added sinkage also likely changes the wind/water couple in a way that increases the weatherhelm. Steve wrote: <SNIP>>>>>>>>>>>>>My experience with the Narpa is 20 knots from abeam with even a perfectly balanced load and you'd be using your rudder for exactly what it was designed for. Helping maintain balance. It is NOT a sin! Most boats weathercock _at_ 20k. If they don't then they are very stiff trackers and *probably* hard to turn, unless edged.<<<<<<<<<<SNIP> It may not be a sin but it is not a free ride either. Dragging that rudder along at an angle to correct for either a weather or lee helm is costing you energy but to my mind tolerating the rudders added drag is better than having to paddle excessively on one side to maintain the correction that way. While it is true that a kayak can be made to not weathercock by making it a very stiff tracker this is only one of many ways to counteract weathercocking (and to my mind probably the least desirable). Contrary to your implication, a kayak can be made to weathercock less and be more maneuverable at the same time. Also, I find a kayak that is stiffer tracking when level and much easier to turn when leaned a very desirable. It allows one to gain the best of both tracking and maneuverability whenever they want it combined in the same kayak. This is especially nice if the kayak can be leaned easily so you don^Òt have to work much or lean your body out into a vulnerable (over the water^×hanging by a knee) position. "Michael Daly" michaeldaly_at_rogers.com <mailto:michaeldaly_at_rogers.com> wrote: <SNIP>>>>>>>>>>The last time I had a significant wind on my beam I played with the skeg until I had just a hint of deployment. That and paddling on one side at a low tempo let me move in the direction I wanted with minimum effort. My speed in the direction of my destination was somewhat slower than the others in my group, but I caught them once we rounded an island and made for the final destination with a tailwind. Using the weathercocking in this way makes me wonder why so many folks complain about it so much. I honestly don't think I'd want a kayak with no weathercocking; I find it works for me almost as much as against.<<<<<<<<< I^Òd say ^Óyou weren^Òt using the weathercocking, the weathercocking was using you^Ô. Your technique slowed you down and had you paddling only on one side. I hate having to do both those things to control a kayak. About 5/8ths into the paddling skills manual on our website www.marinerkayaks.com <http://www.marinerkayaks.com/> I list a dozen ways to deal with weathercocking to avoid having to paddle just on one side and fall behind your paddling partners. They are pretty much in order of easiest to more work in terms of energy expenditure and paddling evenly on both sides. "Michael Daly" michaeldaly_at_rogers.com <mailto:michaeldaly_at_rogers.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>Basically. I didn't want to cancel out the weathercocking too much, so I just set the skeg down a bit. That made it easier to hold a fixed angle to the wind with a paddle stroke on one side. With more skeg in the water, there was too much correction and I had to paddle on both sides with irregular strokes (either more frequently on one side than the other or with a sweep on one side and a straight stroke on the other). That would have resulted in faster speed, but my arms were tired so I preferred one side only.<<<<<<<<<<< Wouldn^Òt it have been nicer to have paddled evenly balanced on both sides and also easily kept up with your group? I^Òd say you performed an interesting experiment and applaud you for being creative and giving that technique a try. The results of your experiment don^Òt seem to show any advantage (that I can detect) to the technique. Still it is valuable to do the experiment. Mike again in another post: >>>>>>Absolutely - same effect and result whether it's wind or current.<<<<<<<< The direction you actually go (as PeterO suggested with his question) is all in the vectors of the different directional forces, such as, current, wind, and paddling direction. Unfortunately for those that would hope to use wind and current to their advantage, any force not in the direction that you want to go is a force which must be overcome with an equal and opposite force on your part. Worse still, a rotating force (such as weathercocking, broaching, or a whirlpool along an Eddyline) must also be overcome as long as it is acting on you. The fundamental difference is that the eddyline only acts to rotate you as you are crossing it but with weathercocking is due to a rotating force (caused by your kayak^Òs imbalance in its wind/water couple in that condition) is acting on you constantly in beam winds and a broaching rotation is acting whenever traveling at an angle to waves that the moving hull won^Òt maintain by itself. Therefore you must constantly work against the rotation causing imbalance in addition to all the directional forces such as wind, current and friction that must also be overcome to reach your destination. The kayak that is able to stay the most neutral in the widest variety of conditions will be the easiest to handle. A neutral kayak can be nudged more in the direction you want it to go without also having to fight a tendency to go where it (not you) wants to go. Weatherhelm does not compensate for drift due to the wind unless it has turned into the wind just the right amount to be on course when it reaches that balance point in the wind /water couple where there is no longer a rotating force being generated (note: this can happen because the end of an object most angled into the wind experiences the strongest force (so if the weatherhelm is not too strong a balance point could conceivably be reached at a still useful angle). With a neutral kayak you point it not at the object you are trying to reach but at an angle that compensates for the forces and it will be easy to keep it on that course. Incidentally, unless you are in a fog, over the horizon or in the gloom of night you don^Òt need a GPS or compass to hold the most direct course to your target. Simply line up a landmark on shore with a distant landmark beyond it and keep them lined up as you paddle. If there aren^Òt two separated landmarks ahead of you stay lined up between a landmark behind you and the target. Note when visibility is poor the target should often be to one side of where you want to go. You want to make it easy to find your target so knowing which way to turn on reaching a shoreline is possible if you are sure you missed your target to one particular side. Even with visibility, erroring to a particular side of the target may be the best bet because the consequences of an error to one side are far more mild than to the other. For instance I^Òd rather turn and paddle down current to reach my goal than to have to turn and fight the current to get to it. Your goal should be to make your kayak be as neutral (to forces causing your kayak to rotate) as possible on the course you intend to take. Don^Òt believe in fairies or ferries (unless of course the ferry is restrained by something like a cable crossing the river (or down wind if the wind is the force you are using). Sure you can paddle mostly into the wind and current and get your ^Óferry^Ô angle to provide some side force that moves you across the river or lake. Except in the case of a current flowing almost as fast as you can paddle, it is probably a lot easier to take a more direct route and as a result spend a lot less time paddling mostly against the wind or current to gain the small side force pushing you toward your goal. Steve wrote: <SNIP>>>>>>>>>I helped develop the Tempest to excel in this environment. I'm working on another boat design that will take FULL advantage of the wind and current vectors. How loose can a sea kayak get and still be controlable. It's a BLAST! <<<<<<<<SNIP> This sounds like great ad copy to me. Where might we buy this WONDERFUL kayak? Gee, I^Òve heard it paddles well in a teapot too. Consider the case of a very strong wind blowing upstream hard enough to cancel out the currents force and keep you from flowing downstream with the current. Would that work like the cable above and allow one to ferry glide across the current while held into it by the wind?. Wouldn^Òt the ferry angle to the water be opposed just as strongly by the opposite ferry angle to the wind in that case so that the kayak would just stay in one place? If so, what^Òs the advantage gained that we can take FULL of? After many paragraphs in which I totally agreed with Chuck Holst, he concluded: >>>>>>As Mike implied, weathercocking turns a kayak in the same direction needed to compensate for drift. Your kayak's natural weathercocking angle might not be exactly the angle you need, but at least it is in the right direction, so forget about *completely* neutralizing it, and learn to use it to your advantage.<<<<<<<<< Unfortunately, as long as your kayak wants to turn off your chosen course you must constantly spend energy to neutralize that tendency *completely* (at least if you want to stay on your chosen course) therefore weathercocking is not to your advantage in that situation. This is true whether that energy is applied through extra paddle strokes on one side or to overcome the extra drag from an angled rudder (Note: this drag this is in addition to the 5 to 10% extra drag caused by the rudder just being in the water). Even if it is a small correction that is necessary the correcting force may need to be applied constantly for mile after mile after mile and over time that small correction has a way of adding up to a lot of extra work. To all the good information Chuck wrote on using a GPS and Compass to hold a course, I^Òd like to add a little more: Unless you are in a fog, over the horizon, or in the gloom of night you don^Ò t need a GPS or compass to hold a direct course to your target. Simply line up a landmark on shore with a distant landmark beyond it and keep them lined up as you paddle. If there aren^Òt two separated landmarks ahead of you, stay lined up between a landmark back where you started and the target. John Down suggested sighting down your paddle but I don^Òt think you must be that precise, just correct if you find yourself drifting much to one side of the line between the points. Note: when visibility is poor your target should often be to one side of where you actually want to go. Do this to make it easier to find your ultimate goal because knowing which way to turn on reaching a shoreline is possible if you are sure you missed your target to one particular side. Even with good visibility, erroring to a particular side of your goal may be the best bet because the consequences of an error to one side might be far less severe than an error to the other. For instance I^Òd rather turn and paddle down current to reach my goal than to have to turn and fight the current to get to it. Next imagine a waterfall just downstream of your goal. In conclusion, your goal should be to make your kayak as neutral (to the forces causing your kayak to rotate) as possible when traveling on the course you intend to take. You don^Òt have much control (other than choosing the time) over the gravity powered directional forces (be they working for or against you) but the rotational forces are due to your kayaks interaction with the other forces. However, how your kayak interacts with them can me changed. Matt Broze http://www.marinerkayaks.com <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: "Matt Broze" <mkayaks_at_oz.net> > I'd say "you weren't using the weathercocking, the weathercocking was using > you". Your technique slowed you down and had you paddling only on one side. But I wanted to slow down and paddle on one side. Otherwise I wouldn't have done it. I was tired and my left elbow was bugginf me. Using the wind was the best way to deal with it. > the paddling skills manual on our website www.marinerkayaks.com > <http://www.marinerkayaks.com/> I list a dozen ways to deal with > weathercocking to avoid having to paddle just on one side and fall behind > your paddling partners. The trim options were limited, since it was a light day paddle. I was edging anyway and wanted to minimize use my left arm - the latter means the assymetric paddling options aren't useful. > Wouldn't it have been nicer to have paddled evenly balanced on both sides > and also easily kept up with your group? I didn't see much on your techniques page that give me evenly balanced paddling options. Assymetric strokes, either by holding the paddle offset or by sweep strokes, I find tiring. Going faster is not to advantage, since increasing speed is inefficient - it takes a lot more energy. If I'm not in a rush, I'd rather let the wind push me than work harder. > The direction you actually go [...] I can balance the weathercocking with a paddle stroke and still get the kayak to go roughly in the direction I want. If I angle the kayak to take advantage of the wind, I have to paddle to counter the downwind motion. If the kayak doesn't weathercock, I still have to compensate for the downwind motion. That work is there regardless. The advantage of the wind ferry is that the wind moves me while I'm doing it. I'm not worried about the speed - it's not a race. > Sure you can paddle mostly into the wind > and current and get your "ferry" angle to provide some side force that moves > you across the river or lake. Except in the case of a current flowing almost > as fast as you can paddle, it is probably a lot easier to take a more direct > route and as a result spend a lot less time paddling mostly against the wind > or current to gain the small side force pushing you toward your goal. Unless I misunderstand you, it sounds like all those WW paddlers that cross a river on a ferry _without_using_any_paddle_strokes_ are performing magic. Mike *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
"Michael Daly" michaeldaly_at_rogers.com wrote: >>>>>>But I wanted to slow down and paddle on one side. Otherwise I wouldn't have done it. I was tired and my left elbow was bugginf me. Using the wind was the best way to deal with it.<<<<<< I wish you had told us this before. In your original post you wrote: >>>>>>>>Under those kinds of conditions, I usually let it weathercock some and take advantage of the wind and current to ferry the kayak. That way you prevent crabbing to some extent. You don't always want to point in the direction you're going. The last time I had a significant wind on my beam I played with the skeg until I had just a hint of deployment. That and paddling on one side at a low tempo let me move in the direction I wanted with minimum effort. My speed in the direction of my destination was somewhat slower than the others in my group, but I caught them once we rounded an island and made for the final destination with a tailwind. Using the weathercocking in this way makes me wonder why so many folks complain about it so much. I honestly don't think I'd want a kayak with no weathercocking; I find it works for me almost as much as against.<<<<<<<<<<< Had you told us you had wanted to paddle with one arm I would have read the middle paragraph differently. In that case (using the wind and the amount of your skeg deployment to reach a balanced position while using strokes on just one side of your body to make progress in your desired direction) I'd have said "What a creative solution to the problem". Your first and last paragraphs from the original I quoted above however reveal a misunderstanding of what weathercocking actually is and how it works. Is it correct to assume you used both arms and also paddled a lot harder when you wanted to catch up to your group in the tailwind. I suppose you could have arranged to maintain a broach to one side in the following waves and kept using the paddle only on your good side (to stop further broaching) then too but you probably wouldn't have caught up to the group in that case. Another possibility, use your paddle behind you as a rudder to keep your kayak pointed directly downwind and be blown to the take-out with a minimum of energy expended while protecting the elbow from overuse. You could feather the paddle so that the blade in the air becomes a sail. It is unlikely you would have caught your group this way either though. >>>>>>The trim options were limited, since it was a light day paddle. I was edging anyway and wanted to minimize use my left arm - the latter means the assymetric paddling options aren't useful.<<<<<<< Don't you mean "symmetric" here? >>>>>I didn't see much on your techniques page that give me evenly balanced paddling options. Assymetric strokes, either by holding the paddle offset or by sweep strokes, I find tiring. Going faster is not to advantage, since increasing speed is inefficient - it takes a lot more energy. If I'm not in a rush, I'd rather let the wind push me than work harder.<<<<<<< I said my goal is as evenly balanced paddling as the conditions will allow. Once you get into the higher numbered techniques to control weathercocking asymmetrical techniques begin to rear there ugly heads (but in an easiest first order, so you only do the minimum amount of extra work needed to solve the problem). >>>>>>>>>>>I can balance the weathercocking with a paddle stroke and still get the kayak to go roughly in the direction I want. If I angle the kayak to take advantage of the wind, I have to paddle to counter the downwind motion. If the kayak doesn't weathercock, I still have to compensate for the downwind motion. That work is there regardless. The advantage of the wind ferry is that the wind moves me while I'm doing it. I'm not worried about the speed - it's not a race.<<<<<<<<< I'd agree with this except for the first line. You will need to balance the rotational movements due to the wind/water couple with a lot of paddle strokes not "a paddle stroke" because until you reach a balanced angle with all the forces involved, weathercocking is a continuous process. It is not a one time deal like an eddyline where just a stroke or two straightens you out again and no additional correcting strokes are needed until you cross the next one. >>>>>>>>Unless I misunderstand you, it sounds like all those WW paddlers that cross a river on a ferry _without_using_any_paddle_strokes_ are performing magic.<<<<<<<<< I love to do that myself, however, it is you who seems to want to believe in magic here. The WW paddlers do this by gaining considerable momentum (by paddling upstream in an eddy) before ramming into the current rather than by performing magic. The difference is that momentum is a very temporary thing. It is perpetual motion that requires magic. You may be able to build up enough momentum to let you ferry across a small river without using another stroke (if you get the angles and leans just right) but at some point on a wider river you are going to have to start paddling upstream to maintain your position against the current to be able to take advantage of any ferrying effect. Otherwise it would be perpetual motion, and for that you would need very powerful magic indeed. Ferrying (and also a rudder) doesn't work when you are not moving relative to the water. I always chuckle when I hear the oft repeated phrase that you need a rudder for winds AND CURRENTS. My experience, when paddling far from shore (and other reference points), is that one of the hardest things about a current is to know its force and direction (or even if you are in one). While you are being effected by it in a major directional way it is not likely having any effect whatsoever on how your kayak handles (except on those relatively rare occasions when crossing and eddyline or turbulence created by an obstruction). In contrast, the wind is constantly affecting the handling of your kayak (both directly and in the form of wind generated waves) as well as also providing a little (but very little relative to the current) directional drift. 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: "Matt Broze" <mkayaks_at_oz.net> > Is it correct to assume you used both arms and also paddled a lot harder > when you wanted to catch up to your group in the tailwind. No, they had rested at the island where we changed course and had paddled slowly on the downwind leg. I didn't need to rest, since I hadn't worked very hard in the wind. I got to the beach at the same time as them. My downwind paddling was as much sailing (holding paddle up) as paddling. > I suppose you > could have arranged to maintain a broach to one side in the following waves > and kept using the paddle only on your good side (to stop further broaching) > then too but you probably wouldn't have caught up to the group in that case. The condition was no waves. That was what is significant about those conditions. High wind and no waves makes for ideal wind ferries, since the kayak is fully exposed to the wind; waves shield the kayak from the wind and only your body is fully exposed. I find that wind ferries are less effective when the waves are up - under those conditions, I only point into the wind enough to minimize downwind drift. > Another possibility, use your paddle behind you as a rudder to keep your > kayak pointed directly downwind and be blown to the take-out with a minimum > of energy expended while protecting the elbow from overuse. You could > feather the paddle so that the blade in the air becomes a sail. It is > unlikely you would have caught your group this way either though. I used edging to steer and not the paddle to rudder. > > I can balance the weathercocking with a paddle stroke and still > > get the kayak to go roughly in the direction I want. > I'd agree with this except for the first line. You will need to balance the > rotational movements due to the wind/water couple with a lot of paddle > strokes not "a paddle stroke" because until you reach a balanced angle with > all the forces involved, weathercocking is a continuous process. I was referring to the point where I am in rough balance. Pointing up into the wind reduces the weathercocking and then things start to get easier. When I said "a paddle stroke" I didn't mean I only take one stroke - I meant that each paddle stroke both maintains my angle to the wind and advances me into the wind yeilding my desired course made good. You seem opposed to wind ferries and my point is that they are effective, especially in conditions where the wind is not accompanied by significant waves. Paddlers have been using ferry techniques for a long time and my own experience is that they make life easy. You imply that the make for more work. Mike *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
"Michael Daly" michaeldaly_at_rogers.com wrote: <SNIP>>>>>>>>>You seem opposed to wind ferries and my point is that they are effective, especially in conditions where the wind is not accompanied by significant waves. Paddlers have been using ferry techniques for a long time and my own experience is that they make life easy. You imply that the make for more work.<<<<<<< How can I be opposed to something that I can't avoid (at least if I want to go somewhere in a kayak when the wind is blowing from the side)? You seem to be implying that there is some advantage to be gained from this wind. Without a good upwind sail and a deep keel, center board, or leeboard the best you can hope to do is minimize your losses by choosing the best ferry angle consistent with your goals. Your goals could range from minimizing the strain on an injury, to minimizing total energy expended, to getting to the take-out before a rapidly approaching thunderstorm. No matter what angle you choose to cross you are to some extent subject to the effects of the wind and the kayak won't be moving in the exact direction through the water that it is pointed in, therefore by definition it is ferrying when going across a wind. The push you get in this sideways direction while ferrying is not powered by the wind alone. On its own, the wind would blow you downwind. So where is the energy coming from to make your boat move somewhat sideways in the direction of your goal (if there is no current)? It looks to me to be coming from the energy expended paddling against the wind to hold your position on the line of your intended course (at whatever angle into that wind you choose to adopt so as to best meet your particular goals). The steeper your angle into the wind the more streamlined your craft will be to the wind and this will make it easier to counteract the wind and remain on the course line. You would need to apply the least effort resisting the wind to remain on the line of your intended course if you point your kayak straight into the wind. Unfortunately this heading doesn't move you any further along the course line towards your goal. Going directly into the wind you would ultimately expend an infinite amount of energy to never arrive at your destination. This might feel good for a little while because you would be expending energy at the lowest possible rate consistent with staying even with the course line. Not only is your pointy-ended kayak most streamlined to the wind at that angle but there is also no hull friction to overcome when you are standing still relative to the water (other than due to yaw from your off center strokes). The more directly you point your kayak towards your goal (and still stay on your intended course, holding to your line relative to being pushed downwind) the higher the rate at which you would have to expend energy to do so. Not only does the wind have nearly the whole side of your kayak to push against but you have to go much faster at that shallow angle to stay on the course line because you must travel so much further in a given amount of time (because time is a factor in how far the wind drifts you to the side). The redeeming feature of this shallow ferry angle choice is that you would get to your destination a whole lot quicker (vs. not getting there at all going straight into the wind). So while the rate of energy expenditure is higher in this particular case the total energy expended would be lower. Of course it feels easier at the time to not work as hard (by going straighter into the wind) but the catch is you must continue this for so much longer that your total energy expenditure for the trip may well be greater. The effects of hull friction (and the other factors involved with drag--one of which is the efficiency of the hull at the angle it is moving through the water) as well as the limitations of the horsepower available and the efficiency of the "engine" are going to determine which angle to keep your kayak angled (to the wind) to be the most efficient in terms of total energy expended to reach your goal. Nearly any kayak's hull is most efficient when going in the direction of the pointy end, but at very slow speeds this hardly matters. Trying to go too fast will increase the frictional drag (at nearly the square of the speed) and eventually as speed is increased you will bump into "hull speed" beyond which you would be using energy at an unsustainable rate (because you are working against gravity as well as the rapidly increasing friction at these speeds) and would be exhausted before being able to go the entire distance to your goal. Somewhere in between these two extremes will be the angle to the wind that allows you to use the least total energy to reach your goal. For a variety of reasons most paddlers will chose to expend more than that optimal amount of energy if it significantly increases their speed without too great an additional strain or energy cost. Much like the same choice a paddler makes whenever they choose to paddle at a less efficient 3 or 4 knots rather than at say a much more efficient speed of 1 knot or less. I think another reason (besides the rate of energy expenditure) you may feel you are working less hard to "wind ferry" at a steeper angle is because at that angle (as you described) you did not have to spend a lot of extra energy fighting the weathercocking tendency as you would have had to do in order to keep the pointy end going more in the direction you wanted to travel. This brings me back to my original point. It is better to have a kayak that is neutral to the wind (when moving forward at a reasonable speed) rather than one that weathercocks or lee-cocks because all known methods of compensation for an imbalanced wind/water couple have costs that can be measured in terms of extra energy expended to keep them pointed in the right direction. If offered the choice of waiting around (while you expended a minimal amount of energy and protected your injury) or towing you, I would gladly have chosen to tow you. That way you could have cut your energy expenditure and elbow strain to near zero, while the group stayed together and also maintained a comfortable and reasonable pace. I could probably use the exercise. 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: "Matt Broze" <mkayaks_at_oz.net> > "Michael Daly" michaeldaly_at_rogers.com wrote: > > > You seem opposed to wind ferries and my point is that they are > > effective, especially in conditions where the wind is not > > accompanied by significant waves. Paddlers have been using > > ferry techniques for a long time and my own experience is that > > they make life easy. You imply that the make for more work. > > How can I be opposed to something that I can't avoid (at least if I want to > go somewhere in a kayak when the wind is blowing from the side)? I didn't say you are opposed to the wind but to wind ferries. You then go on to say how bad wind ferries are. I think you've demonstrated your position. > You seem to > be implying that there is some advantage to be gained from this wind. There is no advantage, however, I can mitigate the effects. There's no point in fighting the wind if you don't have to. Let's note a few things: - The faster you paddle, the greater the weathercocking moment. - The greater the angle to the wind, up to 90 degrees, the greater the weathercocking moment. - The greater the angle to the wind, up to 90 degrees, the greater the leeward drift of the kayak (ie, you get blown off course). Since my objective is to stay on course and minimize the energy I use, I should point up into the wind and not push on at high speed (consistent with other objectives like arrival time). Going off course increases the distance travelled and hence time and energy. The problem is to choose an angle that minimizes the energy I put out while not excessively compromising the time to my destination. The conditions set by the original post were beam wind and no waves. I said that under those conditions, I often use a wind ferry (and I also said that other conditions, such as notable waves, make wind ferries less effective). I learned about wind ferrying from canoeing and canoes are more likely than kayaks (based on my experience) to be used under conditions of winds with little wave height since they are more likely to be used on smaller lakes where the fetch is insufficient to produce waves of significance. If you paddle canoes. which are more sensitive to wind and no wave conditions due to their freeboard and lack of keel (at least in modern lake trippers), you can experiment with the angle relative to the wind. I've done that a lot and have found that the difference between the correct angle and a bad one is considerable. I also know that the effort to work against the wind drops considerably with the correct angle - you can maintain your position with a very slow paddle cadance. Upping the paddle cadance with a small change in angle gets you to your destination. Sure you lose speed relative to a straight line effort, but with much less total energy. I have been in conditions where I've maintained the correct angle and drifted across a lake with almost no effort at all - a very low tempo and an easy stroke! In this particular case, the wind was initially slightly aft of my beam - I used the wind to blow me both downwind (a bit) and across to my destination. The key is to recognize when ferrying is to your advantage and when it is not. I've applied these principles to kayaking and found the same things, though it's a little trickier to get a lot of gain. This I attribute to the fact that the hull presents less of a profile to the wind. You need much higher winds in the kayak for the same effect and this doesn't happen as often without waves. Hence the opportunities are less frequent. > It is better to have a > kayak that is neutral to the wind (when moving forward at a reasonable > speed) rather than one that weathercocks or lee-cocks because all known > methods of compensation for an imbalanced wind/water couple have costs that > can be measured in terms of extra energy expended to keep them pointed in > the right direction. Which means buying another kayak, specifically one that I have yet to experience from any manufacturer that deals in any area where I've test paddled. Almost all kayak manufacturers claim that theirs don't weathercock. The only kayak that I've paddled that is claimed by the designer (not manufacturer) not to weathercock did in fact weathercock when I paddled it for a weekend - so much so that I had to use the rudder for a while (which, while supplied, was claimed not necessary). Pardon my scepticism. My comments were addressed to someone who uses a kayak they already have, not one that exists in theory or in a distant market. All kayaks, in my experience, weathercock to some extent in some speed range. We are also in a position where we rent or borrow a kayak and have little control over the make or type. Learning to avoid weathercocking problems by adjusting trim, using skegs or rudders or by changing paddle technique are all equally valid and useful. Under certain circumstances, ferrying is as well. A wise paddler chooses the best approach for the conditions and kayak at hand. You have your reasons for not wanting to use ferry techniques, just as I have mine for using them. That's fine. I wouldn't want folks not to try it because of your objections. They would be well off by trying it and seeing how they like it. If they find it to their advantage, that's good, if not, they'll agree with you and use other techniques. Mike *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
I wrote: > How can I be opposed to something that I can't avoid (at least if I want to > go somewhere in a kayak when the wind is blowing from the side)? Mike wrote: >>>>>>>I didn't say you are opposed to the wind but to wind ferries. You then go on to say how bad wind ferries are. I think you've demonstrated your position.>>>>>>>> I said no such thing, I suggest you read what I said more carefully. For example in the lines you quoted above I was writing about wind ferries (not wind) as one can not avoid wind ferries whenever paddling across the wind at whatever angle if one maintains a direct line true course. > You seem to > be implying that there is some advantage to be gained from this wind. >>>>>>There is no advantage, however, I can mitigate the effects. There's no point in fighting the wind if you don't have to. Let's note a few things: You can't avoid fighting the wind, you do have to. Your only choice is how you are going to do it. You just agreed that "there is no advantage". >>>>- - The faster you paddle, the greater the weathercocking moment. Agreed (if there is a unbalanced wind/water couple in your craft). >>>>- - The greater the angle to the wind, up to 90 degrees, the greater the weathercocking moment. I think weathercocking is even greater angling somewhat downwind (beyond 90 degrees) since the wind pressure is higher on whatever end of a long objects is angled into the wind. Often though, paddlers confuse the broaching that happens in waves with weathercocking in this angled downwind condition when waves are present. >>>>- - The greater the angle to the wind, up to 90 degrees, the greater the leeward drift of the kayak (ie, you get blown off course). 180 degrees would blow one down wind a lot faster because the hull in the water moves so much easier that way. From 0 to 90 degrees I'd agree with you but there are only small differences in drift rate between 45 to 90 degrees. >>>>>Since my objective is to stay on course and minimize the energy I use, I should point up into the wind and not push on at high speed (consistent with other objectives like arrival time).<<<<<< It is not clear from this if you are talking about the rate of energy use (what you feel) or the total energy use (which multiplies the rate by the time it is applied). Everything I wrote about in the last post was about a kayak that stayed on a true course directly to the destination (whatever the angle it was facing towards) across a side wind with no waves present. >>>>>>>Going off course increases the distance travelled and hence time and energy. The problem is to choose an angle that minimizes the energy I put out while not excessively compromising the time to my destination.<<<<< The range of angles I described never got one off course so the travel distance always remains the same. Energy output and speed made good are the variables not distance. >>>>>>>The conditions set by the original post were beam wind and no waves. I said that under those conditions, I often use a wind ferry (and I also said that other conditions, such as notable waves, make wind ferries less effective). I learned about wind ferrying from canoeing and canoes are more likely than kayaks (based on my experience) to be used under conditions of winds with little wave height since they are more likely to be used on smaller lakes where the fetch is insufficient to produce waves of significance.<<<<<< What did I say that contradicted this? I don't recall mentioning waves or there effects at all in my last post. >>>>>>If you paddle canoes. which are more sensitive to wind and no wave conditions due to their freeboard and lack of keel (at least in modern lake trippers), you can experiment with the angle relative to the wind. I've done that a lot and have found that the difference between the correct angle and a bad one is considerable. I also know that the effort to work against the wind drops considerably with the correct angle - you can maintain your position with a very slow paddle cadance. Upping the paddle cadance with a small change in angle gets you to your destination. Sure you lose speed relative to a straight line effort, but with much less total energy. <<<<<<< As I said, even going in a straight line with no wind at all, moving at less than 1 knot is a lot more efficient than paddling at three or four knots. I know very few paddlers who choose to travel at crawling speeds though. I either wouldn't kayak with them in the first place or I would tow them depending on the situation. >>>>>>>I have been in conditions where I've maintained the correct angle and drifted across a lake with almost no effort at all - a very low tempo and an easy stroke! In this particular case, the wind was initially slightly aft of my beam - I used the wind to blow me both downwind (a bit) and across to my destination. The key is to recognize when ferrying is to your advantage and when it is not.<<<<<< You are always ferrying when moving along a course whatever your kayak's angle to the wind. Depending on what your goals are, some angles have advantages over others along the spectrum of all angle possibilities. I never argued that the angle you chose might not have some advantage under some situation (such as an injury you described in your second post) at least if you were paddling on your own and not in a group you could be putting at risk with your slow speed or separation from the group. >>>>>>I've applied these principles to kayaking and found the same things, though it's a little trickier to get a lot of gain. This I attribute to the fact that the hull presents less of a profile to the wind. You need much higher winds in the kayak for the same effect and this doesn't happen as often without waves. Hence the opportunities are less frequent. <<<<<<<, What principles are you speaking of? You keep talking of gain when it is a loss. The canoe has a lot more losses due to a side wind than a kayak (due to more windage and a shallower draft) so you may notice less effects from the wind in a kayak because it doesn't get blown sideways as much in the first place. Therefore when at a shallower angle into the wind the canoe will move sideways faster. The kayak is at an advantage that should allow a much more direct line to your destination with less effort than with a canoe that must angle more into the wind to stay on the course line. > It is better to have a > kayak that is neutral to the wind (when moving forward at a reasonable > speed) rather than one that weathercocks or lee-cocks because all known > methods of compensation for an imbalanced wind/water couple have costs that > can be measured in terms of extra energy expended to keep them pointed in > the right direction. Which means buying another kayak, specifically one that I have yet to experience from any manufacturer that deals in any area where I've test paddled. Almost all kayak manufacturers claim that theirs don't weathercock. The only kayak that I've paddled that is claimed by the designer (not manufacturer) not to weathercock did in fact weathercock when I paddled it for a weekend - so much so that I had to use the rudder for a while (which, while supplied, was claimed not necessary). Pardon my scepticism. <<<<<<< You certainly have valid reasons to be skeptical. How many kayaks have your tried? Where do you live? Which kayaks are you speaking of? You said your kayak had an adjustable skeg. If you deploy it fully does the kayak still weatherhelm in a side wind? Which kayak is it? You said you barely used the skeg so that you weathercocked up into the wind to ferry. I think you would be better off (in total energy used to reach the destination) by deploying the skeg more fully (and accepting its additional frictional loss) and paddling/ferrying at a much shallower angle. Your paddling partners might appreciate it too. >>>>>>My comments were addressed to someone who uses a kayak they already have, not one that exists in theory or in a distant market. All kayaks, in my experience, weathercock to some extent in some speed range. We are also in a position where we rent or borrow a kayak and have little control over the make or type. Learning to avoid weathercocking problems by adjusting trim, using skegs or rudders or by changing paddle technique are all equally valid and useful. Under certain circumstances, ferrying is as well. A wise paddler chooses the best approach for the conditions and kayak at hand.<<<<<<< I'd dispute that they are equally useful, but agree all are worth looking at. >>>>>>>>>You have your reasons for not wanting to use ferry techniques, just as I have mine for using them. That's fine. I wouldn't want folks not to try it because of your objections. They would be well off by trying it and seeing how they like it. If they find it to their advantage, that's good, if not, they'll agree with you and use other techniques.<<<<<< I can't help but ferry when crossing a wind. The angle I choose to do so at may be a different choice than yours though. I strongly recommend that kayakers experiment with every technique they are aware of or can imagine and then choose for themselves which ones they want to use (regardless of what some supposed expert might say). I would however listen to the expert and try any new techniques she suggested as well. The more techniques you are good at the better off you are likely to be in a wide variety of situations. You seem to have misinterpreted much of what I wrote in my last post and are responding to your misinterpretations rather than to what I wrote. Please read them carefully again. I'm sorry if my reasoning was not clear to you. To everybody: If you think something I said specifically is in error please comment on just that point. If something is not clear to you and you want a clarification of what I mean, please ask me. Other than that I'm finished with writing on this subject. 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/ ***************************************************************************
Matt wrote: - >comment on just that point. If something is >not clear to you and you want a clarification >of what I mean, please ask me. and in an earlier post: - >eventually as speed is increased you will bump >into "hull speed" beyond which you would be >using energy at an unsustainable rate (because >you are working against gravity G'Day Matt & Paddlewise, Your explanations confirmed and developed my understanding of previous posts. A couple of minor questions. What is the difference between "weatherhelm" and "weathercock"? Does one describe wind effects and the other wave effects on a kayak? Secondly you mentioned the effect of gravity on energy consumption. Is this solely due to the increased cadence and therefore the increased frequency of lifts for a paddle and associated water near the end of a stroke? This assumes there is no significant energy use against gravity in 'climbing' waves unless one is pushing hard into surf. All the best, PeterO *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Weathercocking and a weather helm are two names for the same thing, a tendency to turn up into the wind. Weather helm probably came from sailboats which, for one thing, actually have a helm. Rotation due to waves in a following sea is called broaching. I'm not sure what waves pushing back on a bow angled into the waves is called. That would be the equivalent of leecocking (or a lee helm) in the wind. A long object (with equal depth at each end) will come to rest laying across the direction of the waves so whichever end is pointed more into the waves gets the stronger push on it. Gravity acting on the mass of the boat is balanced by the buoyancy in the water that the hull sinks into (displaces).. Once a hull is moving about the speed of a wave (1.34 times the square root of the wavelength) that is the same length as the hull's waterline length the next wave behind the bow wave no longer supports the stern of the hull as high as it had been when at rest or at slower speeds. About that speed, known as "hull speed" the stern starts to drop into the trough of the first wave and to go any faster the hull must climb out of the hole in the water (the trough behind the first wave) the hull is making. Therefore, gravity must be overcome to some extent to go faster. A powerboat with a powerful engine climbs with its bow up steeply for a while and then once it gets to a speed of about 2.5 times the square root of the waterline length it again levels off and planes across the surface. Its center of gravity is several inches higher than when the hull was moving slowly. The drag does not increase at as fast a rate once planing is established but it is still increasing rapidly. Holding a heavy boat up against gravity means that a lot of energy is being used to do so and this is why a displacement hull is a much more efficient way to move a given weight over the water than is a planing hull. A human is not capable of planing a kayak. Friction is increasing drag at about the 1.84th power (nearly the 2nd power) at speeds below hull speed. Once into the area where hull speed comes into play and becomes a major drag force the resistance is going up at about the 4th power. That means to go twice as fast will require16 times the horsepower. An explanation of how length and hull speed relates to kayaks and the choice of length can be found at the start of the FAQ section of our website. Matt Broze http://www.marinerkayaks.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "PeterO" <rebyl_kayak_at_iprimus.com.au> To: "'Matt Broze'" <mkayaks_at_oz.net>; "'Paddlewise'" <Paddlewise_at_paddlewise.net> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 12:25 PM Subject: RE: [Paddlewise] Excessive Weather Cocking (or is it Fairy gliding with the wind) > Matt wrote: - > >comment on just that point. If something is > >not clear to you and you want a clarification > >of what I mean, please ask me. > > and in an earlier post: - > >eventually as speed is increased you will bump > >into "hull speed" beyond which you would be > >using energy at an unsustainable rate (because > >you are working against gravity > > > G'Day Matt & Paddlewise, > > Your explanations confirmed and developed my understanding of previous > posts. A couple of minor questions. > > What is the difference between "weatherhelm" and "weathercock"? Does one > describe wind effects and the other wave effects on a kayak? > > Secondly you mentioned the effect of gravity on energy consumption. Is this > solely due to the increased cadence and therefore the increased frequency of > lifts for a paddle and associated water near the end of a stroke? This > assumes there is no significant energy use against gravity in 'climbing' > waves unless one is pushing hard into surf. > > All the best, PeterO > > *************************************************************************** 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 - 16:33:32 PDT