Re: [Paddlewise] Another Tiderace Review

On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Doug Lloyd <douglloyd_at_shaw.ca> wrote:

>
> Dave gave us a good on-going play-by-play on paddlewise and Westcoast
> Paddler (I finally actually joined WP recently).
>

Dave's postings and his comments also influence me in the direction of a
mutha-ship. I should join WP myself. I'd join CKF too if I could figure out
how to do it without sending money. LOL.

>
> And conceptually and in practice, things like the Mariner sliding seat
> system for adjusting trim were obviously genius, but then again, more
> complexity, more weight. The latter undeniable.
>

Certainly the seat was undeniable genius. And I suppose it does add
complexity in the most basic sense. It's a pretty simple complexity though.
I would have never thought it would work and never believed I could make it
work. But it's actually easy. The sliding seat in my rescued Escape has been
installed for at least 20 years and all I had to do was re-epoxy the rails
to the hull to make it work as good as new. Maybe that's how genius works.


> The lack of bulkheads was another fantastic, if bold, course of action to
> take. I should know, I have almost irreparable damage to my kayak underhull,
> where one can plainly determine the profile of the bulkheads from sever
> cracks. I remember a fellow who first circumnavigated the Charlottes; he had
> a Washington-made kayak that he specified without bulkheads, due to the
> heavy surf landings he anticipated. He also found the kayak a pain to load
> and unload. Again, not a mass-market appeal.
>

A large number of w/w kayaks have no bulkheads even now; many have some
supporting structure though. Back in the "old" days of sea kayaking it was
unusual to find a boat with bulkheads. We had to load everything through the
cockpit. And I seem to remember that, for me, it all went into war surplus
duffle bags.


> As far as Duane's comments, stern rocker is another of those compromises.
> And just where is the degree of separation between a kayak that needs a
> rudder or skeg for mild broaching problems versus severe? Where in the
> continuum does one kayak suddenly designate itself as unfit from a safety
> and easy usage standpoint? And how much is only antithetical hyperbole (not
> Duane's specific observations, but in general kayak community discussions)?
>

Well, marketing is almost a synonym for hyperbole I think.

>
> Ultimately, for a playboat, kayak designers like Bjorn prefer
> maneuverability to tractability with direction stability primarily the
> quality of the paddler technique, rather than the hull design which inhibits
> the kayak forever. This would seem to be the Mariner approach. How one
> arrives there can be j subjective.
>

The different designs of the Mariners do share common hull characteristics
but I don't think that was the point. I think the point was to fulfill a
specific design objective while retaining common performance
characteristics. Certainly, that's what the Mariner web site (
www.marinerkayaks.com) seems to indicate. Most of their designs seem to have
been modifications to earlier boats in order to fulfill some requirement:
comfort for smaller/larger paddlers, better surfing, more load carrying,
higher speed, etc.

Now, it's axiomatic that whatever kayak one owns is the kayak that one
either loves or hates. Just glance over the paddler reviews on
www.paddling.net, for instance. You'd be hard pressed to find many scores
under 9 out of 10. And maybe I'm a convert. A few years back Matt Broze made
a comment on Paddlewise in which he claimed that simple and almost automatic
edges make a rudder a useless appendage on a Mariner. My reaction to that
was, basically, "Pfftt." Oddly enough, Matt was right. Imagine my surprise.
There's nothing worse than a new convert, right?  :)

But my take on Duane's remarks - and I could be wrong - is that the basic
Mariner hull shape (which is a combination of hull shapes each flowing into
the other) solves many of the issues facing all sea kayaks without the
addition of extraneous devices (like skegs and rudders) (although the
sliding seat is an extraneous device... but at least it's entirely within).
That's not to say that a Mariner II can maneuver as nimbly as a Mariner
Coaster - because it can't; or that an Express can carry as much as a Max.
What it does say is that certain characteristics of the kayaks are shared.
Initial stability plus secondary stability; directional stability plus
better-than-average maneuverability; cockpit room plus a tight fit (just
move the seat back to gain more room).

Duane was wondering why no one else had gone in this direction and had,
instead, added external devices to overcome the disadvantages of the hull
shape they designed. The Broze Bros. didn't have to do this with the
Mariners. All their designs, while drawn with a specific goal in mind,
nevertheless share certain critical performance characteristics with all
their other designs but not many characteristics with the other boats out
there even though they demonstrably work. So I still wonder why so few kayak
manufacturers have stolen or modified their ideas. So, apparently, does
Duane. If a Coaster can go straight without a rudder but still maneuver
incredibly well, why haven't others jumped on that bandwagon. Is it just
that they don't like the "fat butt" look?

I like a kayak than can do it all,
>

Maybe this is where I find myself in the minority of sea kayakers. I have no
problem with a kayak that does something specific and does it very well. My
Nimbus Telkwa HV is a wonderful expedition boat (rudder and all) that is
secure, comfortable and safe for long trips. My wife's Nimbus Solander is
perfect for her size and is wonderfully neutral on windy days with scrappy
seas but doesn't carry much of a load. The Express is a terrific performance
boat that can easily carry gear for a weekend. The Coaster works for play.
Any of these have some crossover so in some sense they can "do it all"; but
the Coaster can't be a great expedition boat, the Telkwa wouldn't make a
good rock-garden boat, the Solander wouldn't be my choice for surfing. I
suppose the Express comes as close as any of them to a "do it all" boat but
still has a lack of performance "edge" in the specialties.

And, like most w/w paddlers, I don't much care whether the boat is "pretty".
God knows, the spoon bows and squashed sterns of a w/w playboat or the
bulbous contours of a creekboat bear little resemblance to a "pretty" kayak
but they sell craploads of them to paddlers who expect the boats to do
specific things.

Of course, a w/w kayak brand new is much less spendy than a sea kayak; even
the best playboats and creekboats seldom cost more than about $1300 (US)
while a good sea kayak starts out about $2500 (US). This works against
acquiring a "quiver" of sea kayaks like w/w boaters are prone to do. That
doesn't even count the storage factor which is very different for a 16 to 18
foot boat versus a 7 to 8 foot boat. You can solve the acquisition factor
with careful (and regular) scrutiny of craigslist but storage is a much
harder problem to solve for most paddlers.

with more emphasis on a tight-fitting, low-profile design that tracks well
> in open waters, can still be played with in rock gardens, and has a good
> turn of speed full out, yet paddles easily and burns less calories at
> routine paddling speeds.
>

I really don't think you can get all this in one design; certainly not
without adding skegs, etc. Not that this is bad, mind you (we all know that
I have no problems with rudders, etc.) but it seems that the majority of
boats have to make compromises to get the form that their customers want as
well as the handling characteristics. Duane's point seems to have been that
Mariner got this right; why hasn't anyone else?


> It has to look good too, be able to be maneuver back on course when wave
> and wind conspire to push you around. I don't want a kayak that pops hatches
> in open surf, leaks, and one that doesn't crack under the indignation of
> heavy rocky surf landings; one that has at least a bit of secondary (or
> final) stability, and a kayak that you simply are not overtly aware of
> beneath you (one that makes you feel like part of the environment, rather
> than sitting in a big tub). That last point has been mentioned by Mariner
> owners, so I know some are happy, and certainly the responsiveness of kayaks
> like the Express suggests that this is a key aspect of kayak "feel" and
> flow.
>

Here some of the different design goals of the Mariners come into play. The
Express and Coaster certainly do not have the feel of sitting in a "tub". On
my nicely rounded (ahem!) body both boats are worn not sat in. But the
Mariner Escape is certainly not tight even on me; however it was designed
for an even bigger guy with a foot size of up to 14 (US... I can't even
imagine how big that would be in EU sizes LOL). In the Coaster and Express I
have to wear tight-fitting booties; in the Escape I can wear my hiking
boots. So someone new who paddled an Escape might forever think Mariners are
"huge" while that same person who paddled only an Elan would think they were
designed for midgets. They'd both be right. But both boats still share major
hull design characteristics. The one common characteristic in Mariner boats
is that they feel like an extension of one's body. (Ok, maybe not the
Escape... at least with me in it but with a 300lb guy in it maybe so.)


> For me, traditional Inuit based designs and the British-form kayaks are
> the only thing that turns my crank. I may be wrong, I may be right. It is my
> oinion. That's all I can really answer for, though I am unabashed in my
> desire to see paddlers get out on the water and enjoy themselves - even if
> you have to use "muthashipping". :-)
>

Well ya... I agree with all of that that. Some guys like blondes, some girls
like football players. I wish I had the advantage of living in Victoria with
a plethora of paddling opportunities involving fast moving salt water,
beautiful harbor paddles, etc. I have to drive to them and then figure out
where to stay. The muthah ship seems logical but I won't know until I get
farther along in this.

>
> (My wife just looked at Dave's photos of the bartender, and said she could
> see herself skippering a boat like that, following me around in my kayak. A
> mama mothershipper in waiting!)
>

Yet another good reason to consider mutha ships. My wife, who has been
boating all her adult life (mostly due to the serious mistake she made at
age 18 when she met me) thinks exactly the same thing. It's a way to get
everyone involved at some level rather than just have Dad (or, in my case,
Grampa) drive off for the weekend only to reappear smelly and unshaven and
sore late on Sunday evening. With a muthah-ship the entire family can be
smelly and sore on Sunday evening. :)

Have I mentioned that it's good to have you back?  :)


Craig Jungers
Moses Lake, 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/
***************************************************************************