I've been mulling over the thread that rotated around the video "a conversation with Derek Hutchinson" and some of the comments. Derek Hutchinson has said that he thinks design innovation in sea kayaking is moribund, if not dead, and this got me to thinking. In many ways I agree with him. Especially over the past few years with the popularity of the "Brit Boats"; many of which are indistinguishable from designs of the 1970s. I suppose you could say, "why tinker with perfection" but I'm not at all sure that the Brit Boats are perfection. At any rate, whether you are admirer of this style or not, they certainly don't typify much in the way of innovation. At the other end of the sea kayak spectrum you find the "big boats" that are mostly refinements of boats by BC and PNW designers of the 1970s. There are a few boats in the middle but, for the most part, looking at trailers of boats at the Port Townsend Kayak Seminar last September I was hard pressed to find anything radically different other than the traditional ones. There were the rounded hulls of the "heavy haulers" and the hard chines of the "brit boats"; the holes for skegs in one and rudders on the other. This is in dramatically stark contrast to white water kayaking which has undergone what can only be called (if you'll pardon the overused phrase) a paradigm shift over the past 15 years. Rivers once populated by 12-foot-long river runners has moved to a point where there are boats specialized for water conditions and paddler size. And all of them are shorter than they used to be. So you'll find creek boats, river runners and playboats with the last two categories divided into boats further divided into categories for paddler size. The RPM and RPM Max are good examples; featuring nearly identical hull shapes with the only difference being the size; both length and vollume. It's now common to see playboats offered in three (or more) size ranges for small, medium and large paddlers. It would be easy to dismiss this as marketing hype if it weren't for the simple fact that the RPM and RPM Max are the two most popular kayak designs ever produced for white water kayaking. In fact, when Dagger tried to drop the line a while back they found that they couldn't do it. So many paddlers demanded the RPM be returned to their product mix that Dagger capitulated and put it back in the lineup. So now a white water paddler can select a boat based on performance requirements and not just settle for a boat that fits him (or her). So I could watch a 150lb paddler do a few cool tricks in a playboat and go try that playboat in my size with every expectation of having the boats perform virtually identically regardless of the volume. It's just a matter of scaling up or down. Volume changes but so does beam and length and cockpit size yet performance for the larger paddler remains very close to the performance for the smaller paddler. I think sea kayakers and sea kayak manufacturers should be paying close attention to this. Historically there have been very few sea kayaks which were essentially identical designs which were changed only to accommodate different sized people. Matt and Cam Broze might have been the first to do this on a production basis in the 1980s and 1990s with their Mariner Elan and Express (and subsequent volume versions of the Express). They designed the Express first, then modified it to a lower volume (lowered the deck), and then reduced the volume even more for petite paddlers and called the result the Elan. The result was one hull form with reasonably identical performance for paddlers of different sizes. There are also the Romany versions and several others. These, however, still ask the paddler to make some compromises as the versions are fixed in size; typically HV and LV If you fall between the cracks in sizes they you will have to simply choose the best fit and hope for the best. And in most kayak product lines the boat that fits you might have completely undesirable performance characteristics. So if you love the performance of the "Brooks" you might have to settle for the "Lopez" (or, worse yet, the "Moses Lake") because nothing in the high performance range is made to fit you. You're outta luck. At least until recently. Last September in Port Townsend I noticed that George Gronseth ( www.kayakacademy.com) had a few of his new design, the Illusion, in different volumes. In fact George even had a cockpit mockup which was being used to determine which version would best fit an individual paddler. They'd seat the protential buyer in the mockup and then adjust the "volume" to the point where the paddler felt most comfortable. Then Gronseth's manufacturer, Sterling Kayaks in Bellingham, Washington, would churn out a nicely built Illusion that not only fit the paddler precisely but would paddle pretty much the same (for them) as a boat built for a bigger (or smaller) paddler. Let me emphasize that the Illusion is not just offered in HV or LV (high volume or low volume) like other designs. The Illusion is adjustable in volume. If you need a deck height of 11-3/16 inches then you'll get a deck height of 11-3/16 inches; not 12 and not 11. This doesn't mean that Gronseth's Illusion will be the perfect sea kayak for all paddlers; or even a single individual paddler. I remain convinced that there is no such thing as the perfect "all around" kayak. I'll still want one kayak for surfing and another kayak for long trips and yet another kayak for rock gardens. I don't believe that will change (but we might be getting close). What it means, in my opinion, is that when Pam buys an Illlusion that is sized specifically for her (this is pretty much inevitble, by the way) and raves about it to me (also inevitable), I can buy one in the reasonable expectation that the one I buy - sized specifically for me - will fit me just as well as hers fits her. There are still bound to be some differences, however. For one thing, the length of the boat does not change and, since I'm a more powerful paddler than Pam is, some of the performance characteristics will be different for me than for her. And, of course, changing the volume of a boat - which means flare changes too - means that stability factors will change. They'd change anyway since I'm heavier and taller. Until George can adjust length and beam along with volume, at least. You can take a look at the Illusion CV at http://www.kayakacademy.com/catalog/Illusion.html . I find this exciting and the trend towards customizing a boat for purpose and size exciting. But the infinite adjustability of the Illusion is, for me, truly innovative. Up until now you could only do this if you built your own design or modified someone else's design (this can be problemmatic for some designers) or did your own SOF (which Pam and I are going to do next month at Cape Falcon Kayaks). In fact, this is more like the traditional method of building a kayak. Your comments and ideas are encouraged. 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/ ***************************************************************************
Craig Jungers wrote: > I've been mulling over the thread that rotated around the video "a > conversation with Derek Hutchinson" and some of the comments. Derek > Hutchinson has said that he thinks design innovation in sea kayaking is > moribund, if not dead, and this got me to thinking. In many ways I agree > with him. Especially over the past few years with the popularity of the > "Brit Boats"; many of which are indistinguishable from designs of the 1970s. > I suppose you could say, "why tinker with perfection" but I'm not at all > sure that the Brit Boats are perfection. At any rate, whether you are > admirer of this style or not, they certainly don't typify much in the way of > innovation. > <snip> > > At least until recently. > > Last September in Port Townsend I noticed that George Gronseth ( > www.kayakacademy.com) had a few of his new design, the Illusion, in > different volumes. In fact George even had a cockpit mockup which was being > used to determine which version would best fit an individual paddler. They'd > seat the protential buyer in the mockup and then adjust the "volume" to the > point where the paddler felt most comfortable. Then Gronseth's manufacturer, > Sterling Kayaks in Bellingham, Washington, would churn out a nicely built > Illusion that not only fit the paddler precisely but would paddle pretty > much the same (for them) as a boat built for a bigger (or smaller) paddler. > > Let me emphasize that the Illusion is not just offered in HV or LV (high > volume or low volume) like other designs. The Illusion is adjustable in > volume. If you need a deck height of 11-3/16 inches then you'll get a deck > height of 11-3/16 inches; not 12 and not 11. > > This doesn't mean that Gronseth's Illusion will be the perfect sea kayak for > all paddlers; or even a single individual paddler. I remain convinced that > there is no such thing as the perfect "all around" kayak. I'll still want > one kayak for surfing and another kayak for long trips and yet another kayak > for rock gardens. I don't believe that will change (but we might be getting > close). > > What it means, in my opinion, is that when Pam buys an Illlusion that is > sized specifically for her (this is pretty much inevitble, by the way) and > raves about it to me (also inevitable), I can buy one in the reasonable > expectation that the one I buy - sized specifically for me - will fit me > just as well as hers fits her. > > There are still bound to be some differences, however. For one thing, the > length of the boat does not change and, since I'm a more powerful paddler > than Pam is, some of the performance characteristics will be different for > me than for her. And, of course, changing the volume of a boat - which means > flare changes too - means that stability factors will change. They'd change > anyway since I'm heavier and taller. Until George can adjust length and beam > along with volume, at least. You can take a look at the Illusion CV at > http://www.kayakacademy.com/catalog/Illusion.html . > > I find this exciting and the trend towards customizing a boat for purpose > and size exciting. But the infinite adjustability of the Illusion is, for > me, truly innovative. Up until now you could only do this if you built your > own design or modified someone else's design (this can be problemmatic for > some designers) or did your own SOF (which Pam and I are going to do next > month at Cape Falcon Kayaks). In fact, this is more like the traditional > method of building a kayak. > > Your comments and ideas are encouraged. > > > Craig Jungers > Moses Lake, WA Perhaps I am more dense than usual today, but I seem to be missing the point. On the one hand, you speak of a lack of design variation; on the other you speak of custom-sized boats. Is this not apples and oranges? The fact that a boat is available in a multitude of sizes does not, it seems to me, make it a "new" or different design. I must hasten to add that I applaud the movement to making boats in varying sizes. I think it's a great idea! And I also agree -- although I cannot afford to follow up on the idea -- that having different boats for different purposes (or even different moods!) is also good. But there seems to be a fairly limited range of variables involved in building a kayak, so that they will tend to resemble each other. And, it seems to me, there is a certain inertia in the marketplace that almost dictates that a kayak must look like other kayaks to gain any foothold in the market. As an example, there were some reviews of a kayak in the past year or two (my memory isn't what I'd like it to be) which has sides that curved inward in the middle of the boat. This, to me, was a new variation in boat design, but it seems to have disappeared from view. I have seen nor heard nothing in many months about this design. Perhaps it was an ill-conceived design from the performance point of view and has justly been tried and sentenced. Until I read otherwise though, I will hold my suspicion that people didn't buy it because it looked *too* different. An interesting topic. I'm looking forward to reading other comments on it. -- Darryl *************************************************************************** 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 Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Darryl Johnson < Darryl.Johnson_at_sympatico.ca> wrote: > Perhaps I am more dense than usual today, but I seem to be missing the > point. On the one hand, you speak of a lack of design variation; on the > other you speak of custom-sized boats. > > Is this not apples and oranges? I thought I said "innovation" rather than variation. There has been a fair bit of variation. Not a whole lot of innovation. The Illusion's advance is in customization of fit and the design of a boat that makes it relatively easy to manufacture it in custom sizes. This is not as easy as it sounds. I'm hopeful that more customization will follow. It's much easier to do multiple sizes in plastic boats once the tooling is made; just spit 'em out and weld 'em together. Composite boats are more complicated and take a lot more work. > > The fact that a boat is available in a multitude of sizes does not, it > seems to me, make it a "new" or different design. Well, the idea of making a performance range variable across an multitude of sizes is, at least, innovative. > But there seems to be a fairly limited range of variables involved in > building a kayak, so that they will tend to resemble each other. And, it > seems to me, there is a certain inertia in the marketplace that almost > dictates that a kayak must look like other kayaks to gain any foothold in > the market. You might have thought so 15 years ago when thinking about white water kayaks. But a modern w/w playboat really doesn't resemble a 1994 river runner very much. There was, of course, an evolution in the designs from the old pointy-at-both-ends river boats through the Perception Pirouette to the latest 6-foot long flat-bottomed playboat. But the product of 1975 and the product of 2009 look far different from each other. So I'm not altogether certain that making all kayaks look one way or another is all that important except, perhaps, from a marketing standpoint. As an example, there were some reviews of a kayak in the past year or two > (my memory isn't what I'd like it to be) which has sides that curved inward > in the middle of the boat. This, to me, was a new variation in boat design, > but it seems to have disappeared from view. I have seen nor heard nothing in > many months about this design. Perhaps it was an ill-conceived design from > the performance point of view and has justly been tried and sentenced. Until > I read otherwise though, I will hold my suspicion that people didn't buy it > because it looked *too* different. I think that it was not enough of an advance in performance and too radical an advance in "looks". But I never got to see one in real life let alone paddle one. > An interesting topic. I'm looking forward to reading other comments on it. > > Yup. :) 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/ ***************************************************************************
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 13:42:33 -0400, "Darryl Johnson" <Darryl.Johnson_at_sympatico.ca> said: > But there seems to be a fairly limited range of variables involved in > building a kayak, so that they will tend to resemble each other. And, > it seems to me, there is a certain inertia in the marketplace that > almost dictates that a kayak must look like other kayaks to gain any > foothold in the market. > > As an example, there were some reviews of a kayak in the past year or > two (my memory isn't what I'd like it to be) which has sides that > curved inward in the middle of the boat. This, to me, was a new > variation in boat design, but it seems to have disappeared from view. > I have seen nor heard nothing in many months about this design. > Perhaps it was an ill-conceived design from the performance point of > view and has justly been tried and sentenced. Until I read otherwise > though, I will hold my suspicion that people didn't buy it because it > looked *too* different. The boats you are thinking of are from Warren Light Craft http://www.warrenlightcraft.com/ The boat designer/builder spent many years as a multi-hull sailboat designer. He's used to going against tradition ;-) The paint jobs on his boats are amazing. I'm not sure if I ever want to see the customer who goes for the "we can match the color of the kayak to your vehicle".... A year or two I got a tour of his manufacturing. It's an interesting process of vacuum bagging in an oven. Kirk -- Kirk Olsen *************************************************************************** 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, As George Dyson wrote in "Baidarka, the Kayak": "No matter how many of these vessels are built, and no matter how far we go with the evolution of their design, their form will bear a resemblance to the past because the laws of the ocean have not changed." Duane Southern California --- On Fri, 4/10/09, Craig Jungers <crjungers_at_gmail.com> wrote: > I've been mulling over the thread that rotated around > the video "a > conversation with Derek Hutchinson" and some of the > comments. Derek > Hutchinson has said that he thinks design innovation in sea > kayaking is > moribund, if not dead, and this got me to thinking. In many > ways I agree > with him. Especially over the past few years with the > popularity of the > "Brit Boats"; many of which are indistinguishable > from designs of the 1970s. *************************************************************************** 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 worked as a teacher for 30 years or so. And, every year at the fall "in service" we were treated to dissertations on innovative ways of accomplishing our task ... but about 90% of the time those new techniques were never evaluated for their efficacy. To wit, there were _no_ follow-up studies to establish that the innovative techniques helped students develop skills or understanding any better than what we had been doing for years ... techniques and methods which _had_ been tested, which were based on sound understanding of cognitive development in adults and younger folks, and how pleasure/reward motivates people. So, when someone berates a community of developers of kayak designs for failing to be "innovative," my skin crawls. In fact, a person like Craig might berate the Broze Bros. because they failed to "innovate" after developing and successfully marketing there epoch-making designs of ... when? ... the eighties? the nineties? When I visited their shop in 1993, they had essentially the same hulls on the racks they were selling in 2005. There is a reason for the success of the Broze hulls: they are based on an understanding of the physics and hydrodynamics of water, in particular, how changing the part of a hull engaged in the pressure distribution a paddler puts in the water makes the hull "carve," much in the same way a ski with side cut carves a parallel turn. [If you ask Matt about this, he will freely tell you they applied ideas learned in designing skis to kayaks.] So why would the Broze Bros. change their hulls? To be innovative? No. So they would __work__. Engineers know that if a design meets its goals, and tinkering with it only degrades its performance, you should not mess with it! If the goals change, _then_ the design might change. Which leads me to the second reason sea kayak hull design innovation (the real kind, not the marketing kind) has plateaued: paddlers are not doing radically new things with their hulls. Most want a compromise boat that can carry a load, carve turns, roll layback fashion, pass through the water with a modicum of effort, and be easy on the pocketbook. As we all realize, some of these design goals are in conflict with each other. About the only thing to change in hulls the last several years is reduction in the height of the back deck because folks favor layback rolls nowadays. In fact, many "older" designs have been modified to handle laybacks, by cutting the back deck down. In contrast, the WW crowd _did_ change what it wanted to do with its hulls, and there _was_ true innovation in hull design: playboats came into favor over trippers. Someone who spends an hour or two exploring what he/she can do on one wave at river mile 17 does not want to haul around a lot of useless hull; planing and edging become paramount; volume and stability do not. In brief, because there was a sizeable element of the WW fraternity which _changed_its_paddling_requirements_, hull form changed. No similar change in paddling practice has occurred in sea kayaking. Finally, a breakthrough in the basic understanding of the craft can also generate true innovation: if someone develops a better understanding of hydrodynamics, then we may see some true design changes in sea kayaks, in the same way winglets appeared on airliners to increase wing efficiency. To date, nothing parallel has occurred in the science of pushing a hull through water. -- Dave Kruger Astoria, OR *************************************************************************** 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 Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 6:28 AM, Dave Kruger <kdruger_at_pacifier.com> wrote: I worked as a teacher for 30 years or so. And, every year at the fall "in > service" we were treated to dissertations on innovative ways of > accomplishing our task ... but about 90% of the time those new techniques > were never evaluated for their efficacy. Good point. The teaching of mathematics from elementary school through university seems to have hit a serious speed bump due to "innovation" in teaching. > > So, when someone berates a community of developers of kayak designs for > failing to be "innovative," my skin crawls. Ya, but we're old guys. We really aren't likely to change our ideas. Innovation is anathema to us because it represents change. In fact someone backchannel mentioned that sea kayaking is chock full of old guys. Maybe that's the reason. Heck, I'm as bad as anyone else my age as far as cranky goes. In fact, a person like Craig might berate the Broze Bros. because they > failed to "innovate" after developing and successfully marketing there > epoch-making designs of ... when? ... the eighties? the nineties? When I > visited their shop in 1993, they had essentially the same hulls on the racks > they were selling in 2005. I don't think the Broze Brothers had to keep on innovating. Edison did it (but there are even some questions about that) but how many strokes of genius do we demand of a designer? And, to be fair, some of their innovation was recognition of someone else's idea and implementation in their own products (to wit: the Coaster). In Matt and Cam's case they had spent 20 years chopping up fiberglass hulls and rebuilding them. I think berating them for not continuing to innovate would be pretty unfair. > > So why would the Broze Bros. change their hulls? To be innovative? No. So > they would __work__. Engineers know that if a design meets its goals, and > tinkering with it only degrades its performance, you should not mess with > it! If the goals change, _then_ the design might change. The Mariner hulls worked pretty well but, again, as people get older they find little need to change. If it works, then don't fix it. Matt and Cam had built a pretty nice little business, had created at least one legendary kayak, and eventually wanted to do something other than sit in a storefront listening to other people plan kayak trips. But, speaking as an engineer, tinkering with a design is pretty much what engineers live to do. We don't need no goals; we just like to tinker. Somewhere there are kayak designers who are tinkering with designs right now. Maybe the problem is just getting those designs out and recognized. I'm just curious as to why there were so few willing to take a Mariner design and take it a bit further. Actually, someone has... or at least thinks he has. Brian at Cape Falcon Kayaks has tweaked the Coaster into a skin-on-frame design that he thinks is an improvement on the original. I'll be able to comment on that better in a month or so. > > Which leads me to the second reason sea kayak hull design innovation (the > real kind, not the marketing kind) has plateaued: paddlers are not doing > radically new things with their hulls. Most want a compromise boat .... Well I'm not so sure about that. I drove over Deception Pass last weekend (moving the Muthah-Ship to its Oak Harbor slip) and there were lots of kayaks on the water. Certainly paddling Deception Pass is more radical that what the majority of sea kayakers were doing 10 years ago; or even five years ago. And anyway, most sea kayakers are over 40. Maybe we'll need to see a large influx of 20-somethings enter the sport in large numbers before we find out whether radically new things can be done with the hulls. For years white water kayakers were told that it was the sales of sea kayaks that supported the white water designs. That they didn't sell enough white water boats to justify the expense of the new designs but that the sea kayak crowd kept them going. I wonder if that's true any longer. > > In contrast, the WW crowd _did_ change what it wanted to do with its hulls, > and there _was_ true innovation in hull design: playboats came into favor > over trippers. This was, I firmly believe, because the people who were doing white water migrated into other sports. The last two years I was on white water it was damned hard to find anyone over 35 on the river. And the older people were, like me, mostly in RPMs. What changed was the demographic. No one my age was interested in 65 foot drops, that's for sure. > > Finally, a breakthrough in the basic understanding of the craft can also > generate true innovation: if someone develops a better understanding of > hydrodynamics, then we may see some true design changes in sea kayaks, in > the same way winglets appeared on airliners to increase wing efficiency. To > date, nothing parallel has occurred in the science of pushing a hull through > water. > This is a "chicken and the egg" argument. Does innovation stem from a change in goals or does a new design promote a change in what people decide they can do? It's probably a little of both. Pastic boats certainly changed white water paddling and allowed people to do things that they wouldn't have risked a fiberglass boat doing. But I also think that the sea kayaking culture might be in for a new period of innovation. As I said in the original post the Illusion offers an innovation in its ability to vary fit over a wide variety of paddlers. The fit that white water paddlers have had for the past five or six years is probably going to find its way into sea kayaking. Nice to see a spirited chat on here. It was getting way too quiet. 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/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:51 PDT