On 6/29/07, John Winters <jdwinters_at_eastlink.ca> wrote: > > Craig wrote; > > > We do have data that crosses those boundaries. Paul Caffyn's data. I'm not > sure why you so casually dismiss it. > > > Unfortunately, you are incorrect. However, if you are satisfied with Paul > Caffyn's data then that is a nice thing for you. Ok John... I'll do what you demanded fromMatt. Support that statement with data. If you cannot think of a way to objectively measure the forces acting on a > boat then it is clear you are not the person that should be set to do that > task. Some one who understands fluid dynamics, on the other hand, and > understands test procedures might be able to do it. Oh, please. If it were easy to do then someone would be doing it now. The problems revolve around the variables; not finding someone who "understands fluid dynamics" or "test procedures". Objectively testing for all variables is impossible. Would you do it in a test tank? Then how would that apply to the real world? Would you use a 160lb paddler? How would that apply to a 180lb paddler? The nit picking (by, I expect, you) would be endless. Caffyn recorded a nearly-33% increase in daily mileage with a rudder compared to no rudder. If you don't agree with it, then provide some data (not test parameters) to refute it. Craig Jungers Royal City, WA *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Craig Jungers wrote: > Caffyn recorded a nearly-33% increase in daily mileage with a rudder > compared to no rudder. It seems to me with that kind of difference, he's not measuring the performance of the rudder so much as either of: 1) how badly designed his kayak is or 2) how poorly chosen the kayak was for his type of paddling. No kayak should require a rudder. If you want to use one, fine, but a kayak that _needs_ a rudder is a seriously flawed design. I've paddled kayaks that need a rudder - one, which I've condemned before, I launched with the rudder locked in the retracted position into a windy Lake Ontario. After a few hundred meters of paddling in every direction except the one I wanted to go, I returned the kayak to the beach and went home. This borrowed kayak was a ridiculously bad design. The kayaks I've owned have not required a rudder. My Solstice GTHV, long ago sold, was very well mannered without the rudder, so much so that I never used it. If there was any hint that the rudder would have made such a difference as Caffyn showed, I'd have sold the kayak quickly and condemned it considerably. As it was, I'd expect that the rudder would only provide a marginal difference and only under the most extreme conditions. Given that I never deployed the rudder in the 5 or so years I paddled the Solstice, those conditions would have to be very extreme indeed. 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 think that there are other factors that could have resulted in such a large difference. Prevailing winds, for one thing. But we'll never know for sure until someone tries to replicate the data. Caffyn himself is adamant in his defense of the rudder, however. He clearly feels that it made a huge difference. And, since no one has ever done anything like what he did it's hard to refute him. Craig Jungers Royal City, WA On 7/1/07, Michael Daly <michaeldaly_at_greatlakeskayaker.ca> wrote: > > Craig Jungers wrote: > > > Caffyn recorded a nearly-33% increase in daily mileage with a rudder > > compared to no rudder. > > It seems to me with that kind of difference, he's not measuring the > performance of the rudder so much as either of: > > 1) how badly designed his kayak is or > 2) how poorly chosen the kayak was for his type of paddling. > > No kayak should require a rudder. If you want to use one, fine, but a > kayak that _needs_ a rudder is a seriously flawed design. > > I've paddled kayaks that need a rudder - one, which I've condemned > before, I launched with the rudder locked in the retracted position into > a windy Lake Ontario. After a few hundred meters of paddling in every > direction except the one I wanted to go, I returned the kayak to the > beach and went home. This borrowed kayak was a ridiculously bad design. > > The kayaks I've owned have not required a rudder. My Solstice GTHV, > long ago sold, was very well mannered without the rudder, so much so > that I never used it. If there was any hint that the rudder would have > made such a difference as Caffyn showed, I'd have sold the kayak quickly > and condemned it considerably. As it was, I'd expect that the rudder > would only provide a marginal difference and only under the most extreme > conditions. Given that I never deployed the rudder in the 5 or so years > I paddled the Solstice, those conditions would have to be very extreme > indeed. *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Craig Jungers wrote: > I think that there are other factors that could have resulted in such a > large difference. Prevailing winds, for one thing. How? If the winds affect the ruddered kayak, they affect an unruddered kayak. If the ruddered performs poorly in those winds unless the rudder is used and the unruddered is not so seriously affected, then the problem is the ruddered kayak and the solution is not the rudder. > But we'll never know for > sure until someone tries to replicate the data. Caffyn himself is adamant in > his defense of the rudder, however. He clearly feels that it made a huge > difference. And, since no one has ever done anything like what he did it's > hard to refute him. But you claimed Caffyn's data stands on its own. Clearly it doesn't. This is exactly what John's on about - the data is not collected properly. Caffyn hasn't isolated the rudder from other effects. Caffyn's subjective observations in the absence of any controls (like objective measurements, a kayak that doesn't need a rudder etc) means nothing to a person looking for an objective assessment of the performance of rudders. 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/ ***************************************************************************
On 7/2/07, Michael Daly <michaeldaly_at_greatlakeskayaker.ca> wrote: > > Craig Jungers wrote: > > > I think that there are other factors that could have resulted in such a > > large difference. Prevailing winds, for one thing. > > How? If the winds affect the ruddered kayak, they affect an unruddered > kayak. An unruddered kayak might perform poorly in following seas compared to the same kayak with a deep draft rudder. Then again, maybe it was just that he could concentrate on his stroke. Repeat his test, collect some data, and see for yourself. > But you claimed Caffyn's data stands on its own. Clearly it doesn't. Clearly it does. It's data. It's recorded. It's not opinion or hearsay. It needs someone to go out and repeat it. It might bear further analysis. But it doesn't need unjustified opinions. > This is exactly what John's on about - the data is not collected > properly. Caffyn hasn't isolated the rudder from other effects. > Caffyn's subjective observations in the absence of any controls (like > objective measurements, a kayak that doesn't need a rudder etc) means > nothing to a person looking for an objective assessment of the > performance of rudders. Caffyn was not setting out to do a study on rudders. He was trying to make his circumnavigation of Australia and the data was a byproduct of that trip. But it was not opinion or anecdotal. It's valid empirical data. It makes a starting point for those who would like to investigate this subject further. What he doesn't deserve is a small cadre of anti-rudder paddlers second-guessing him because, in their opinion - and, apparently *only* in their opinion, he was wrong. If you don't like what his data appears to say go get some data of your own to refute it. Just criticising it on the basis that he had no "control" (I would think that his kayak prior to the rudder was a pretty decent control, actually) or that the kayak itself is faulty or that it was just a story is both unfair to Paul Caffyn and to the paddling community at large. It seems to me that there are plenty of knee-jerk reactions to this subject but damn few people - other than Matt and Caffyn and perhaps some of the racing consortiums - with anything other than anecdotal evidence. Craig Jungers Royal City, WA *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
On Jul 2, 2007, at 1:07 PM, Craig Jungers wrote: > > >> But you claimed Caffyn's data stands on its own. Clearly it doesn't. > > > Clearly it does. It's data. It's recorded. It's not opinion or > hearsay. It > needs someone to go out and repeat it. It might bear further > analysis. But > it doesn't need unjustified opinions. My first car had manual steering. My new car has power steering. I got better gas mileage with my old car than I am now getting with my new one. (kind of sad) Therefore: Manual steering is more fuel efficient for all cars. Caffyn's data is undoubtedly accurate. That doesn't mean you can draw any generalized conclusions from it. There are a lot of variables that can effect the results. Lets assume the boats he used for each trip were identical except for the rudder. Lets further assume that he loaded the boat identically and the weather and ocean conditions were identical. We can also assume that on his second trip he had already done the trip once previously. This fact alone is enough to explain a large portion of his experience that the second trip was easier. I know that going places I've been before always seems easier and goes faster. I think the experience of doing a long expedition inevitably makes someone better at doing long expeditions. While that experience does not effect the kayak, it does effect the meat powering the kayak. I think it is typical that long distance travelers cover more ground at the end of a trip than they do at the beginning. I would be surprise if given identical conditions, and identical boats, the second trip was not faster. One feature of humans is they learn and get better at doing things. But even if you could rule out every other variable in his experience and be absolutely sure that the only thing different between the two trips was the rudder and could thus conclude that the rudder is the sole source of any difference, this does not mean you can generalize the results to other boats in other conditions, paddle by other paddlers, paddling with different loads. There may be something peculiar about the boat, paddler, or conditions that resulted in the rudder creating an increase in efficiency. The boat he used may be particularly unbalanced, requiring an unusual amount of correction to maintain course. Mr. Caffyn may have some peculiarity in his paddling technique that a rudder overcomes. The conditions he paddled in may have been such that a rudder was especially beneficial. There is a lot more to Caffyn's trips than the presence or lack of a rudder. While any data that comes out of the trip is interesting, it can not stand by itself because we don't know much about the circumstances that created the data. There is more to the difference in mileage of my two cars than the presence or lack of power steering. No one would think to conclude that one man's experience with two different cars can be translated to apply to all cars with all people. More data is required be for you can conclude anything. Nick Nick Schade Guillemot Kayaks 824 Thompson St Glastonbury, CT 06033 USA Ph/Fx: (860) 659-8847 http://www.guillemot-kayaks.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/ ***************************************************************************
On 7/2/07, Nick Schade <nick_at_guillemot-kayaks.com> wrote: > > > > Caffyn's data is undoubtedly accurate. That doesn't mean you can draw > any generalized conclusions from it. There are a lot of variables > that can effect the results. Which is why I suggest that people go out and replicate the data in different kayaks and on different waters; preferably on long trips but any set of trips would be useful. Most of us have the tools for this now. Simply choose a month (say, July) to paddle without the rudder and another month (say, August) to paddle with it. Record your trips and your paddling times (a Garmin conveniently gives you both average speed while moving and average speed for the entire trip including stops). Post them here. Let's see some data. Don't expect everyone to agree with any conclusions, but just raw data would be useful. Lets assume the boats he used for each > trip were identical except for the rudder. Lets further assume that > he loaded the boat identically and the weather and ocean conditions > were identical. Let's cut to the chase. Assume, for a moment, that Caffyn's results showed that his daily mileage decreased after the installation of the rudder. Do you think, for even a moment, that the anti-rudder zealots wouldn't be pointing this out at every opportunity? What this discussion has proven, at least to me, is that there are people who view rudders as a satanic device and nothing will dissuade them. Someone could provide test measurements galore, data by the bucketful, and enough statistics to choke a Cray and there would always be some problem. Some lack of "control", or "subjectivity" to complain about. If it were done in a test tank then that would be used to show that "real world" is different and if it were done outside then "weather conditions" would be the grounds. This is fine. If someone wants to believe that the use of a rudder under any circumstances is inherently evil then I have no problem with it. My problem was labeling a recorded set of data as "anecdotal" and dismissed by someone who is supposed to be a professional. It just got my scientific dander up. Caffyn doesn't deserve that, I don't think. His accomplishments certainly stand on their own. The data is not anecdotal. But all the opinions are. The bottom line right now is: if you want to use a rudder by all means do it; there is, at present, more evidence that it will enhance your point-to-point paddling performance than there is evidence that it will diminish it. If it doesn't then document it and post it here. Craig Jungers Royal City, WA *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
On Jul 2, 2007, at 3:21 PM, Craig Jungers wrote: > Most of us have the tools for this now. Simply choose a month (say, > July) to paddle without the rudder and another month (say, August) > to paddle with it. Your suggested test is equally as good at determining which month is faster - July or August - as it is at determining if a rudder is better or worse. It can also be used to suggest when you are in better shape, or if water temperature matters. It is very good at producing anecdotal evidence, but not for gathering accurate data. It is a start, and if you want to do it, feel free, the results will be interesting, but very arguable. If you were to take a year and record data with a GPS every day you paddle and either deploy or retract your rudder every 1/4 hour on the 1/4 hour, you could start to get some good data about how _you_ perform with and without a rudder. If you were then to repeat the test with everyone you know paddling the same boat, you could start to get decent data about how a specific boat performs with and without a rudder. If you now repeat that test with everyone you know each paddling every kayak you can get your hands on you can get a pretty good set of data for how kayaks generally performs with and without a rudder. > What this discussion has proven, at least to me, is that there are > people who view rudders as a satanic device and nothing will > dissuade them. For the record, I think rudders can help people paddle faster, I just don't think Caffyn's data is solid evidence of that opinion. ICF sprint racing kayaks tend to have rudders. I would be shocked if there wasn't testing done to demonstrate that they are beneficial for racing. However, just observing that the ICF boats use them is itself anecdotal evidence, not reliable data. > The data is not anecdotal. But all the opinions are. "Anecdotal" refers to evidence based on reports of specific individual cases rather than controlled, clinical studies. Caffyn's report is the very definition of "anecdotal". Nick Nick Schade Guillemot Kayaks 824 Thompson St Glastonbury, CT 06033 USA Ph/Fx: (860) 659-8847 http://www.guillemot-kayaks.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/ ***************************************************************************
On 7/2/07, Nick Schade <nick_at_guillemot-kayaks.com> wrote: > > > It is very good at producing anecdotal evidence, but not for gathering > accurate data. It is a start, and if you want to do it, feel free, the > results will be interesting, but very arguable. > As near as I can tell, everything on this forum is very arguable. > If you now repeat that test with everyone you know each paddling every > kayak you can get your hands on you can get a pretty good set of data for > how kayaks generally performs with and without a rudder. > Yup. Wouldn't that be an interesting set of data though? And not at all anecdotal. > For the record, I think rudders can help people paddle faster, I just > don't think Caffyn's data is solid evidence of that opinion. > I don't believe I ever said that I thought Caffyn's data is solid evidence that rudders can help people paddle faster. I just said it was valid evidence, that it was emprical evidence and that it was not anecdotal. And, for the record, my Nimbus Telkwa is the only kayak I've ever owned with a rudder and the first one I ever paddled with a rudder. I do believe that, over a point-to-point course, a rudder can help me reduce effort. Whether I put that savings into going faster or going farther or stopping to play is up to me. But I've never thought that a rudder in-and-of itself is either a religious experience or a device invented by Satan. It's a tool that can be used if one desires. ICF sprint racing kayaks tend to have rudders. I would be shocked if there > wasn't testing done to demonstrate that they are beneficial for racing. > However, just observing that the ICF boats use them is itself anecdotal > evidence, not reliable data. > Yup. But the results of races between kayaks with rudders and without them would not be anecdotal, it would be raw data subject to analysis. Generally statistical analysis. > The data is not anecdotal. But all the opinions are. > > > "Anecdotal" refers to evidence based on reports of specific individual > cases rather than controlled, clinical studies. Caffyn's report is the very > definition of "anecdotal". > Well now we're throwing in a new term. I don't think anyone has referred to Caffyn's "report". A report certainly can be anecdotal ("James reported that he saw a guy in a kayak with a rudder going faster than one without.") but since it's the data itself - the raw, unadulterated written accounts of how many miles were paddled each day - we're talking about here, then that's not anecdotal. Nor would a statistical analysis of that data be anecdotal. Anecdotal evidence is generally held to be that given by untrained observers or hearsay ("I heard bob said he went faster with a rudder"). Caffyn's data (not his "report" - whatever that is) is a written record of miles travelled over a long period of time set down by an expert in the field. So when Caffyn states that he thought the rudder made him go faster that may be anecdotal. But when he says that the statistics indicate that he went faster with a rudder it's not anecdotal. But, of course, one can do a lot with statistics. It's often held that one patient reporting a side-effect of a medicine is anecdotal; but when 1,000 patients report the same side-effect that's no longer anecdotal. And evidence does not have to be only from "controlled, clinical studies" to be valid, empirical data. The North American bird count is an example. We all seem to be caught up in a trap in which only data from something that was measured is valid when, in fact, science is full of emprical studies made by self-taught experts. Geology is one. Zoology is another. Craig Jungers Royal City, WA *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
On Jul 2, 2007, at 10:08 PM, Craig Jungers wrote: > Anecdotal evidence is generally held to be that given by untrained > observers > or hearsay ("I heard bob said he went faster with a rudder"). > Caffyn's data > (not his "report" - whatever that is) is a written record of miles > travelled > over a long period of time set down by an expert in the field. So when > Caffyn states that he thought the rudder made him go faster that > may be > anecdotal. But when he says that the statistics indicate that he > went faster > with a rudder it's not anecdotal. But, of course, one can do a lot > with > statistics. I guess I don't see any statistics here. There is a sample of one. Caffyn found a difference with previous experience only once. It happened to occur over a long stretch of coast immediately after a previous long stretch of coast, but it is still only one single event. Statistics require several samples. This is not statistical data, but a report of an observation and one man's perception of what was going on. He has not done anything to raise it above the level of anecdote. The fact that Caffyn is an "expert" makes it an anecdote worth paying attention to, but his conclusions are still capable being mistaken. Nick Schade Guillemot Kayaks 824 Thompson St Glastonbury, CT 06033 USA Ph/Fx: (860) 659-8847 http://www.guillemot-kayaks.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/ ***************************************************************************
On 7/3/07, Nick Schade <nick_at_guillemot-kayaks.com> wrote: > I guess I don't see any statistics here. Caffyn took his average daily mileage before rudder installation and compared it with his average daily mileage after rudder installation and published that figure. That is a statstical analysis; however rudimentary Again, the value in Caffyn's data is that it was a byproduct of the agenda not the agenda itself. The results, according to Caffyn, surprised him because prior to the modifications of his kayak he was unwilling to believe that there would be any benefits. > He has not done anything to raise it above the level of > anecdote. So you don't think that the daily records of mileages on a trip of that length amounts to any more than "anecdotal"? And how would you "raise" data to something above anecdotal? I have the feeling that we are talking at cross-purposes here. Anecdotal data would not be a series of mileage entries. It would be something on the order of, "I must've paddled 100 miles that day." The fact that Caffyn is an "expert" makes it an anecdote > worth paying attention to, but his conclusions are still capable > being mistaken. Well, aren't all conclusions capable of being mistaken? And, again, why would his records be anecdotal? Craig Jungers Royal City, WA *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
> On 7/3/07, Nick Schade <nick_at_guillemot-kayaks.com> wrote: > >> I guess I don't see any statistics here. > > > Caffyn took his average daily mileage before rudder installation and > compared it with his average daily mileage after rudder installation and > published that figure. That is a statstical analysis; however rudimentary He essentially divided one long distance by a long time (e.g 1000 miles in 25 days or whatever) and compared it to another long distance divided by another long time in a different place. While these are averages, they aren't statistics. Statistics require multiple samples and they should be interspersed with each other. > >> He has not done anything to raise it above the level of >> anecdote. > > > So you don't think that the daily records of mileages on a trip of that > length amounts to any more than "anecdotal"? > > And how would you "raise" data to something above anecdotal? I have the > feeling that we are talking at cross-purposes here. Anecdotal data would > not > be a series of mileage entries. It would be something on the order of, "I > must've paddled 100 miles that day." > No, a series of consecutive days doing the same thing are just one sample. Precise data from one incident is still anecdotal. Caffyn would have to have, at the very least, randomly alternated between rudder and non-rudder a couple times during his trip to produce statistical results. Instead he did one thing on the first part of his trip and something different on the later part. > The fact that Caffyn is an "expert" makes it an anecdote >> worth paying attention to, but his conclusions are still capable >> being mistaken. > > > Well, aren't all conclusions capable of being mistaken? And, again, why > would his records be anecdotal? Because, despite the fact that the data was taken over multiple days it amounts to just one incident. Nick *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
On 7/4/07, Nick Schade <nick_at_guillemot-kayaks.com> wrote: > > While these are averages, they aren't statistics. > > Statistics require multiple samples and they should be interspersed with > each other. This might surprise a lot of statisticians. > Because, despite the fact that the data was taken over multiple days it > amounts to just one incident. > According to this theory a person who collects daily readings from his thermometer, barometer, hydrometer and hygrometer every morning for 30 years has only one incident. Craig Jungers Royal City, WA *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
The fastest kayaks are rudder-free, although steering a rudder-free kayak can be hard on the arms. For those who want incontrovertible proof (of both points), please see the following video, which was filmed at a lake in Iceland: http://tinyurl.com/26dcgp You'll notice that part way through the video the kayaker is referred to as "canoe boy", reflecting a continuing confusion among our British colleagues over proper use of the term "canoe" . I'm pleased to finally resolve this debate, once and for all. Dan Hagen Bellingham, Washington *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Yeah, that guy was on our whale hunt today. He couldn't keep up! -----Original Message----- The fastest kayaks are rudder-free, although steering a rudder-free kayak can be hard on the arms. For those who want incontrovertible proof (of both points), please see the following video, which was filmed at a lake in Iceland: http://tinyurl.com/26dcgp You'll notice that part way through the video the kayaker is referred to as "canoe boy", reflecting a continuing confusion among our British colleagues over proper use of the term "canoe" . I'm pleased to finally resolve this debate, once and for all. Dan Hagen Bellingham, Washington *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
On Jul 2, 2007, at 10:08 PM, Craig Jungers wrote: > Anecdotal evidence is generally held to be that given by untrained > observers > or hearsay ("I heard bob said he went faster with a rudder"). > Caffyn's data > (not his "report" - whatever that is) is a written record of miles > travelled > over a long period of time set down by an expert in the field. So when > Caffyn states that he thought the rudder made him go faster that > may be > anecdotal. But when he says that the statistics indicate that he > went faster > with a rudder it's not anecdotal. But, of course, one can do a lot > with > statistics. I guess I don't see any statistics here. There is a sample of one. Caffyn found a difference with previous experience only once. It happened to occur over a long stretch of coast immediately after a previous long stretch of coast, but it is still only one single event. Statistics require several samples. This is not statistical data, but a report of an observation and one man's perception of what was going on. He has not done anything to raise it above the level of anecdote. The fact that Caffyn is an "expert" makes it an anecdote worth paying attention to, but his conclusions are still capable being mistaken. Nick Schade Guillemot Kayaks 824 Thompson St Glastonbury, CT 06033 USA Ph/Fx: (860) 659-8847 http://www.guillemot-kayaks.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/ ***************************************************************************
I brought my fast little solo canoe and both single and double blades with me to Groton, MA and am looking for both suggestions for interesting paddles and organized trips. I can keep up with moderate sea kayaks and tandem canoes and can handle up to class II water and 2 foot waves with this boat. I would like to paddle less than 2 hours from here. So far I've only paddled on the Nashua river. Thanks. Marilyn Kircus Who dares to teach must never cease to learn. John Cotton Dana *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
[Please remove all old content that is not pertinent to your reply including old headers and footers. It's list policy.... this post was modified to meet policy - bad posting technique by the moderator... ] On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 16:33:24 -0700 (PDT), "Marilyn Kircus" <mkircus_at_sbcglobal.net> said: > I brought my fast little solo canoe and both single and double blades > with me to Groton, MA and am looking for both suggestions for > interesting paddles and organized trips. I can keep up with moderate sea > kayaks and tandem canoes and can handle up to class II water and 2 foot > waves with this boat. > > I would like to paddle less than 2 hours from here. So far I've only > paddled on the Nashua river. Lots of good choices in the area. http://www.nspn.org is very active local sea kayak club. Starting close to you and heading east (I'm not that familiar with the choices west and north of groton and will leave that up to others): The concord river from Billerica to concord is nice. It can get crowded on weekends. The shawsheen from dascomb road in andover or upstream of ballardvale can be a pleasant quiet water paddle, it's not as good when it's hot and the water gets low. Sections of the merrimack river can be fun. Below 495 from Lawrence to haverhill there's not much development along the river. Or if you put in in Lawrence (near 28), to head upstream toward lowell there's a big launch area. On weekends I expect it's a bit busy. I paddle there off season. The parking is near a not so nice neighborhood (I've never had problems there) and the river gets nice amazingly quickly. Frequently there's a bald eagle hanging out in the trees just west of route 93, there's only about a dozen buildings and a golf course along the south shore of the river from the launch site up to Lowell. There are a couple launch sites, on the merrimack, in west newbury - you have the chance of bald eagles both up and down stream from the launch site, the water is a bit quicker, it's a further drive too, with less development along both banks. Driving further I love paddling in the mouth of the Piscataqua, Launch behind Frisbee's store in Kittery point maine for some nice exploring, stick to the creek behind gerrish island, lunch at chauncey's creek is an great excuse to go up the creek. Or on the south of the river mouth behind new castle island(I'm not sure of launch sites behind new castle). Driving a bit further into Mass, the Ipswich river in Topsfield/Danvers is a popular canoe destination. One of my summer favorites is paddling essex bay, in Essex Massachusetts, or paddling out from the Ipswich river and have lunch on the south tip of plum island, or the sandbar opposite Cranes beach. If the weather is calm this is a fun place to be - it's also the site of Keith Attenborough's rescue so it can be an ugly place to be if the conditions get rough. Kirk *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Craig Jungers wrote: > An unruddered kayak might perform poorly in following seas compared to the > same kayak with a deep draft rudder. Then the flaw is in the kayak. Using a rudder to fix a flawed kayak is not proof that a rudder is the solution to every problem or that a rudder will make any kayak "better". You seem to be avoiding this basic fact. Just because he benefited from a rudder proves nothing about rudders. What he has shown is his _kayak_ is better with the rudder. Unless he isolates the effect of the rudder from the kayak, he shows us nothing. > Repeat his test, collect some data, and see for yourself. I've already done such - read my previous post. Some kayaks benefit greatly because they are badly designed kayaks. Some do not benefit in any apparent way if they are well designed kayaks. What is significant is whether a _good_ kayak benefits significantly from a rudder. I haven't seen that. I have seen rudders used to compensate for a badly designed kayak. Caffyn's data suggests he has a rudder on a bad kayak. > Clearly it does. It's data. It's recorded. It's not opinion or hearsay. It's not based on any substantial analysis nor does it come with any relevant data on the test environment. > Just criticising it on the basis that he had no "control" Data in the absence of control is just circumstantial anecdote. > (I would think that his kayak prior to the rudder was a pretty > decent control, actually) Based on what? His kayak sans rudder is not measured relative to anything else. What is the standard that is used to define the baseline of what a kayak should be without a rudder? A Pintail without skeg? A WW kayak with inherent longitudinal instability? A Mariner that was never designed for a rudder? An ICF racer? > is both unfair to Paul Caffyn and to the paddling > community at large. It is more unfair to claim that something worthwhile is known about rudders by taking the information at face value and misleading people about rudders. We need real results, not religious worship of Caffyn's anecdotes. 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/ ***************************************************************************
Craig Jungers wrote: > I think that there are other factors that could have resulted in such > a large difference. Prevailing winds, for one thing. Michael responded: >>>>>>How? If the winds affect the ruddered kayak, they affect an unruddered kayak. If the ruddered performs poorly in those winds unless the rudder is used and the unruddered is not so seriously affected, then the problem is the ruddered kayak and the solution is not the rudder.<<<<<<<<< I think Craig meant that because the non-rudder kayaking was done early in the trip condition then could have been such that Paul spend a lot of time bucking headwinds but didn't do so as much later in the trip when he was using the rudder. Also Paul started the trip in the colder South and moved North up the East Coast into much warmer waters. For every 10 degrees F the water temperature goes up the friction goes down about 2.5%. I don't know what the actual differences are here but I imagine there could be a better than 30 degree difference from when he started without the rudder to when he was measuring his mileage with one. Paul would have needed to trade off at least every few days if not every few hours to make a fair comparison. Unless he wrote down all the factors each day (including water temperature and wind speed and direction/relative to his direction) he would have no way to make a good comparison. Further, his conditioning and efficiency of stroking may well have improved over time during the trip (which I suspect it did even if he started out as a highly skilled paddler--as he certainly did). Matt Broze 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/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:45 PDT