I'm sorry to have gotten you thinking Craig. A wing will work in any fluid. As for it being faster, Paul Hayward has a good point. If you want to really see the difference between paddles you will need to use a kayak that has a higher hull speed than you can paddle the distance at you which you will be testing (with the fastest paddle) otherwise that difference will be seriously limited by the very steep drag curve of the boat caused by wave drag (known as hull speed). So if you are limited to using your Mariner II you might do well to test it using a longer course and doing it before you get in better shape. The other alternative is to find a kayak with a lot more frictional drag (much longer or as long and much wider) or use a very narrow race boat that has a much softer hull speed limit to push against. I'm trying to give the wing paddle every advantage here to prove its worth. My personal opinion is that it does allow you to go just a bit further with each stroke (but also requires that you put in the extra energy to push the kayak further during that stroke) so the efficiency difference is small and due mostly to the less time wasted expending energy between strokes. Certainly a racer's edge in sprint racing using the wing, but not as much as many claim. However, there are so many downsides to the wing shape in what you can do with it for controlling the kayak (and limiting your repratrare of strokes) that if there isn't much speed or paddling ease advantage at the speeds you might normally paddle you would be better off using the wing stroke with a non-wing paddle. If you have a Greenland stick add it to the test mix too. *************************************************************************** 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, Feb 19, 2010 at 8:23 AM, MATT MARINER BROZE <marinerkayaks_at_msn.com>wrote: > I'm sorry to have gotten you thinking Craig. It's a nasty habit. Most people seem to be able to break it pretty easily, however. You, apparently, aren't one. :P > A wing will work in any fluid. > LOL... ya it must've been late. It's what happens when an electronics guy thinks too much about physical things. > As > for it being faster, Paul Hayward has a good point. ..... So if you are > limited to using your Mariner II you might do well to > test it using a longer course and doing it before you get in better shape. Paul has an excellent point and an easy one to overlook. It certainly had't occurred to me 'til he mentioned it. I could use the Express. The big Nimbus is kind of beamy for a good wing stroke (as is the F-1). But I think I can push the Express to hull speed easier than the Mariner II. My short course is about 1.5 (statute) miles (we are inland and on a lake, after all) and my long course is about 2.3 miles. They depend on whether I cut through a grass island (shallow and slow) or not. I often do that just to check out the birds nesting in the island. Otherwise the long-course line from my dock runs 1/4 mile to the cut under the I-90 freeway and then straight to the turn-around (a distinctive rock that rises above the water) and back. I am pretty sure that even if I were in the best shape ever I couldn't push the Mariner II to hull speed for over 2 miles; even statute miles.... with any paddle. What I'd like to be is in good enough shape physically so that a week of test paddling doesn't improve me significantly in that time period. I don't want to be in better shape by the time I get to the third paddle than I was at the first paddle. My personal opinion is that it > does allow you to go just a bit further with each stroke (but also requires > that you put in the extra energy to push the kayak further during that > stroke) > so the efficiency difference is small and due mostly to the less time > wasted > expending energy between strokes. Certainly a racer's edge in sprint racing > using the wing, but not as much as many claim. I am, by no means, a sprint racer. And the edge that a wing gives to a well-conditioned athlete would not apply to me. I will be 67 years old when I do this, after all. I am curious to see whether the wing I use (which no one makes any more) makes a clear difference for me as opposed to a Lightning paddle (which no one makes any more). It's interesting that a couple summers ago Dave Kruger tried my wing out and even though it was his first time with a wing it was damned hard to keep up with him while he was paddling with it. He didn't like it much. In fact, almost no one likes it much. LOL However, there are so many > downsides to the wing shape in what you can do with it for controlling the > kayak (and limiting your repratrare of strokes) that if there isn't much > speed > or paddling ease advantage at the speeds you might normally paddle you > would > be better off using the wing stroke with a non-wing paddle. A couple of years paddling with *my* wing would certainly lead me to that conclusion as well. However my wing may not be representative of the wing paddles available now and certainly not of the wing Freya used. My wing paddle was made by Werner for the U.S. Canoe and Kayak Team (conspicuously marked). It's stiff and relatively heavy. I'm pretty sure it was used as a sprint paddle in competition. I bought it from an ad on craigslist for about $100 several years ago. Hey, it seemed like a good idea at the time. There weren't many wing paddles around (and almost none used) but they were getting more press and I wanted to play with one without spending $400. My wing has one thing in common with all wing paddles I've looked at: it feels unbalanced. If you hold the paddle as it was intended to be held for a paddle stroke and just loosen your grip the paddle will flop over to an inverted position. For me this means that I have to hold the paddle firmly and think about which face is "active". Also, my wing is difficult to use in a low brace position without being *very* careful which side of the paddle you are bracing with and the angle of attack. If you brace with the *wrong* side (with the forward edge - the winged shape - down) the paddle will catch and trip you. So you have to be sure to brace with the leading edge facing up. But the wing is very sensitive to angle and if you angle it a little bit down it will dive and take you and your kayak with it. Most paddles do this but the wing is even more pronounced. My wing is not very good at back-paddling and it's terrible at draw strokes and sculling. On the other hand my wing excels at rolling, high braces, and bow rudders; as long as you are careful which side of the blade is active. > If you have a > Greenland stick add it to the test mix too. > I do have a Greenland paddle, actually. I made it myself at Brian Schulz's class in Oregon last year. In my inexpert hands it flutters like a bat flying in a hailstorm and actually is kind of scary. I suspect it's not exactly perfect. Everyone swears that they are great paddles so it's probably just me and/or my first-time attempt at making one. I was going to ask Duane if I could try one of his paddles in CA but I wasn't up to paddling much that day. So I guess I'll have to add that to the mix too.... golly, that should be fun. :D Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA www.nwkayaking.net *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Paddlewisers, All this talk about hull speed, paddles, and strokes reminds me of a story. Around a campfire at a symposium years ago, I heard a BCU coach, who had a few drinks and just found out was instructing a forward stroke class the next day, say with disdain, "If you want to go faster, paddle harder!" There is some truth to that. Duane *************************************************************************** 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 Using the Greenland paddle with the wing stroke might take care of the flutter. The other option is to use the greenland paddle with the top edge forward so it dives when you pull on it (in a low angle stroke) and then adjust the angle a bit so it climbs back to the surface for the exit. Having it slice sideways through the water is likely to keep it stable and the only flutter will be the one to reverse direction and bring it back to the surface. That's the theory anyhow. The Escape has a very high hull speed for its length and has more frictional drag than the other Mariners so it might be better than the Mariner II for the test. The Mariner II might be the best of the rest of your kayaks (or the outright best of your kayaks for your test) but something like a Seda Glider or CD Expedition has both a higher hull speed and more frictional drag, that might prevent you from pushing it at hull speed even during a much shorter sprint paddle (at least until you get into top shape). Run the ests on the same no wind day. As the lake warms up you will get faster. A ten degree F. higher temperature reduces drag about 2.5% because the warmer water is less viscous. best to make shorter runs on a fixed course on the same no wind day to limit the variables that might effect the results. You need to push all out or keep constant track of your heart rate to assure you are putting equal energy into each run. Stay out of any water less than 6 or 7 feet deep or wave drag on the bottom may affect your results (essentially reducing the hull speed of the kayak as the waves you make feel the bottom and slow down, creating the very hull speed problem we are trying to avoid). You pretty much identified the downsides to the wing paddle. Add that it only does one forward stroke well (and only then if you are pulling hard) and that in a stern draw it tends to want to dive under the boat unless you cock your wrist back to an extreme angle and I think you will have most of the negatives covered. The later is especially annoying using a rudderless kayak. Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 11:56:32 -0800 Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Wing paddle and hull speed was (Re: Who Took Shaun White Sea Kayaking?) From: crjungers_at_gmail.com To: marinerkayaks_at_msn.com CC: paddlewise_at_paddlewise.net I could use the Express. The big Nimbus is kind of beamy for a good wing stroke (as is the F-1). But I think I can push the Express to hull speed easier than the Mariner II. My short course is about 1.5 (statute) miles (we are inland and on a lake, after all) and my long course is about 2.3 miles. They depend on whether I cut through a grass island (shallow and slow) or not. I often do that just to check out the birds nesting in the island. Otherwise the long-course line from my dock runs 1/4 mile to the cut under the I-90 freeway and then straight to the turn-around (a distinctive rock that rises above the water) and back. I am pretty sure that even if I were in the best shape ever I couldn't push the Mariner II to hull speed for over 2 miles; even statute miles.... with any paddle. What I'd like to be is in good enough shape physically so that a week of test paddling doesn't improve me significantly in that time period. I don't want to be in better shape by the time I get to the third paddle than I was at the first paddle. Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA www.nwkayaking.net *************************************************************************** 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, Feb 19, 2010 at 8:36 PM, MATT MARINER BROZE <marinerkayaks_at_msn.com>wrote: > > Using the Greenland paddle with the wing stroke might take care of the > flutter. The other option is to use the greenland paddle with the top edge > forward so it dives when you pull on it (in a low angle stroke) and then > adjust the angle a bit so it climbs back to the surface for the exit. Having > it slice sideways through the water is likely to keep it stable and the only > flutter will be the one to reverse direction and bring it back to the > surface. That's the theory anyhow. > I have tried both of these techniques with some improvement but, frankly, the Lightning is just a better paddle than my Greenland paddle is. At least in my hands. I'm going to give it a better try this season and, if necessary, make another one. > The Mariner II might be the best of the rest of your kayaks (or the > outright best of your kayaks for your test) but something like a Seda Glider > or CD Expedition has both a higher hull speed and more frictional drag, that > might prevent you from pushing it at hull speed even during a much shorter > sprint paddle (at least until you get into top shape). > I only have the M-II, an Express, the F-1 and the Telkwa available here. My daughter has one of the original Solanders but I can barely squeeze into that (my wife's Solander had a larger cockpit). I think the M-II is the obvious choice. > Run the ests on the same no wind day. As the lake warms up you will get > faster. A ten degree F. higher temperature reduces drag about 2.5% because > the warmer water is less viscous. best to make shorter runs on a fixed > course on the same no wind day to limit the variables that might effect the > results. You need to push all out or keep constant track of your heart rate > to assure you are putting equal energy into each run. Stay out of any water > less than 6 or 7 feet deep or wave drag on the bottom may affect your > results (essentially reducing the hull speed of the kayak as the waves you > make feel the bottom and slow down, creating the very hull speed problem we > are trying to avoid). > My plan was to do this over a week choosing only no-wind mornings (very common here in the summer). Once we get into June our weather is pretty stable. Fortunately I know the area well from years of paddling back and forth so I can stay away from shallow depths. If I did the 2.3sm tests on the same day I'd have fatigue issues muddying up the results. But a short course would be different. So I might set up two different tests: one using the long course over a week and the other using a short course over one or two mornings. > > You pretty much identified the downsides to the wing paddle. Add that it > only does one forward stroke well (and only then if you are pulling hard) > and that in a stern draw it tends to want to dive under the boat unless you > cock your wrist back to an extreme angle and I think you will have most of > the negatives covered. The later is especially annoying using a rudderless > kayak. > > As Kirk said, one option is to cheat and use a ruddered kayak. I only have one of those (the Telkwa) but this issue is one reason I explored the idea of putting a rudder on the M-II (gasp!). Especially for the Deception Pass Dash where working the eddies against the current requires more precise directional control than a wing would give me but the long run with the current on another leg would make a wing a good idea (if the wing paddle really does move the kayak forward more efficiently). For the rest of the Paddlewisers who might be following this, Matt and I have been discussing this back-channel for a couple of weeks. Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA www.nwkayaking.net *************************************************************************** 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, 19 Feb 2010 11:56 -0800, "Craig Jungers" <crjungers_at_gmail.com> wrote: > My short course is about 1.5 (statute) miles (we are inland and on a lake, > after all) and my long course is about 2.3 miles. They depend on whether I > cut through a grass island (shallow and slow) or not. I often do that > just to check out the birds nesting in the island. Otherwise the long-course line > from my dock runs 1/4 mile to the cut under the I-90 freeway and then > straight to the turn-around (a distinctive rock that rises above the > water) and back. How is the Mariner in shallow water? My Huki S1X is pretty good in shallow water, My Fenn Mako is horrible in water that's less than about 10 feet deep. They have comparable dimensions, the flatter bottomed Huki goes better in shallows. > I am, by no means, a sprint racer. And the edge that a wing gives to a > well-conditioned athlete would not apply to me. I will be 67 years old when > I do this, after all. I am curious to see whether the wing I use (which no > one makes any more) makes a clear difference for me as opposed to a > Lightning paddle (which no one makes any more). I've got a paddle assortment similar to yours. An Epic Wing, a Lightning ultra light with Struer blades, and a greenland stick. When I paddle my Pintail I only want the greenland paddle. It's such a slow boat that using the Lightning or a wing feels like I'm ripping my joints apart. The boat hits it's hull speed and refuses to go any faster. It will squat more, but getting it to go faster is next to impossible. I suppose I could adjust my cadence to about 5 strokes per minute, but that feels unnatural to me. > My wing has one thing in common with all wing paddles I've looked at: it > feels unbalanced. If you hold the paddle as it was intended to be held for a > paddle stroke and just loosen your grip the paddle will flop over to an > inverted position. For me this means that I have to hold the paddle firmly > and think about which face is "active". The blades are offset from the shaft. They all rotate in a loose grip. If you keep one blade firmly planted most of the time it's less likely to rotate. Which does imply you spend the whole time in propulsion mode and not paddling leisurely. > Also, my wing is difficult to use in a low brace position without being > *very* careful which side of the paddle you are bracing with and the angle > of attack. If you brace with the *wrong* side (with the forward edge - the > winged shape - down) the paddle will catch and trip you. So you have to be > sure to brace with the leading edge facing up. But the wing is very > sensitive to angle and if you angle it a little bit down it will dive and > take you and your kayak with it. Most paddles do this but the wing is even > more pronounced. All of the above is true. With time you can get used to it. If you want to spend time changing directions a blade other than a wing is nice. Or cheat and get a boat with a rudder.... For playing around in a maneuverable rollable boat I wouldn't think of using the wing. Definitely time for the greenland. If you want to get from one place to another I definitely prefer the wing. The lightning feels positively sloppy in the water compared to a well planted wing blade/stroke. > My wing is not very good at back-paddling and it's terrible at draw strokes > and sculling. On the other hand my wing excels at rolling, high braces, > and bow rudders; as long as you are careful which side of the blade is > active. With some care sculling with a wing isn't too bad. Back paddling is a ugly. I definitely have a bias. I probably paddled 70 days last year with the wing, 2 with the greenland stick, one with the Lightning. I spend 95+% of my paddling time on a ruddered surf ski. Controlling strokes aren't all that necessary, outside of a good slap low brace and a modified sweep/high brace. 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/ ***************************************************************************
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Kirk Olsen <kork4_at_cluemail.com> wrote: > > > How is the Mariner in shallow water? My Huki S1X is pretty good in > shallow water, > My Fenn Mako is horrible in water that's less than about 10 feet deep. > They have > comparable dimensions, the flatter bottomed Huki goes better in > shallows. > When I say the interior of the grass islands are shallow I mean six to eight inches deep! This makes paddling difficult even with very low angle strokes. No kayak I know of likes water this shallow except maybe my big Nimbus Telkwa with just me in it. Even so it's difficult to tell if it's the boat going slow or the paddles hitting the mud. On busy summer weekends these little lagoons are ideal for hiding out from jet skis and waveboard boaters. I've got a paddle assortment similar to yours. An Epic Wing, a > Lightning ultra light > with Struer blades, and a greenland stick. > My favorite paddle is that Lightning ultra-light. It's only drawback is that it's single piece but I am pretty sure I can change that. :P Too bad the outfit that took over Lightning didn't continue making his paddles because I think they are incredible. But I don't think they are for everyone. Like the wings, for that matter. The blades are offset from the shaft. They all rotate in a loose grip. > If you keep one blade > firmly planted most of the time it's less likely to rotate. Which does > imply you spend the whole time > in propulsion mode and not paddling leisurely. > Yes, this "unbalance" is only noticeable when you are just holding the paddle; once you are actually out paddling the wing feels "right". Interestingly enough my wing has a tendency to find its own stroke. If you allow it to let it go where it wants to go then you will have a pretty reasonable wing stroke. For playing around in a maneuverable rollable boat I wouldn't think of > using the wing. Definitely time for the greenland. Well so far I prefer the Lightning; which actually comes pretty close to a whitewater paddle in the way it performs with the F-1 (Coaster copy in SOF). I have just not come to terms with my Greenland paddle. > If you want to get from one place to another I > definitely prefer the wing. > The lightning feels positively sloppy in the water compared to a well > planted wing blade/stroke. > I dunno If I'd go *that* far. I am pretty partial to that Lightning paddle. But I do choose boats/paddles for the planned paddle. If I'm in currents (like Deception Pass) it will be the F-1 and the Lightning. However when I paddle around the Columbia River - where there is a 1 or 2 kt current - I take the Mariner II and the wing because I know I'll have to paddle against the current at some point in the trip. As Melissa says, these sorts of things lead one towards a fleet. :) Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA www.nwkayaking.net *************************************************************************** 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: > If you want to really see > the difference between paddles you will need to use a kayak that has a higher > hull speed than you can paddle the distance at you which you will be testing The question that interests me is whether one can paddle more efficiently with a wing at fast touring speeds, say, 4 to 4.5 kts. I hope so, since I just ordered my first wing paddle (ONNO) and do not ever intend to go at max speed. I have also committed myself to a few months of learning the stroke. Freya said in her San Diego presentation that the wing was efficient and that the wing stroke and paddle are what allowed her to do such long days with no injury. *************************************************************************** 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, Feb 19, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Gerald Foodman <gfoodma_at_earthlink.net>wrote: > > The question that interests me is whether one can paddle more efficiently > with a wing at fast touring speeds, say, 4 to 4.5 kts. I hope so, since I > just ordered my first wing paddle (ONNO) and do not ever intend to go at max > speed. I have also committed myself to a few months of learning the stroke. > Freya said in her San Diego presentation that the wing was efficient and > that the wing stroke and paddle are what allowed her to do such long days > with no injury. > > And so we are witness to the beginning of a trend. Doug Lloyd was right, yet again. I could have started this one myself if I had only paddled without clothes more often. Oh.... wait.... Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA www.nwkayaking.net *************************************************************************** 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 had asked Freya at the Victoria presentation if she suffered any tendinitis or other joint fatigue. Paul C. had reported pretty soar shoulders after some of his longer days around Australia, so I was curious about Freya and her wing paddle. She claimed the wing not only helped her drive the Epic 18 Sport, but that she had no paddle fatigue injuries as the wing paddle is used with a high stroke. She then went on to demonstrably show how most paddlers use their Euros, mimicking their poor wrist, elbow, and shoulder ergonomics through the water; this she compared visually with her wing paddle stroke. Freya also mentioned that the Epic kayak allowed the knees up position associated with efficient, fast forward movement. She claimed paddlers in Brit boat with their legs spread apart are missing out on this better way of paddling. Well, any time someone talks about spreading legs, I take notice. Though in this case I did feel she was generalizing as there are new sea kayaks out now that allow a knees-up paddling position, though the Epic kayaks are optimized with acute deck angles to allow a closer-in paddle stroke (presumably with the wing paddles). I think it would be unfortunate if paddlers pick up these wing paddles if their kayaks don't have the top end speed that makes the marriage more worth while. Craig's longer Mariner still doesn't have the long waterline length that these race sea kayaks do, though the Epic 18 is one of the few that actually performs well in really lumpy seas. Freya did mention this too, though it sounded a bit like add copy from the Epic website. However, no one was about to disagree with her. :-) I'm still looking for a fast sea kayak with a good top end, that has a sea kindly ride, low windage, responsive with some stability, and allows for an upright stroke when required. I've paddled the Seda Glider - fast, but pathetic in chaotic seas. Freya's Epic 18 with it's awesome rudder system might be a good choice for me, if I could get a better layup and real hatches. There's the Point 65 XP18, but somewhat of an ugly boat. I suspect that's the issue with 18-foot waterline length kayaks - they just don't have the sex appeal of the Greenland-styled kayaks. Oh Craig, please don't paddle nude. The world isn't ready. :-) Doug Lloyd On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Gerald Foodman <gfoodma_at_earthlink.net>wrote: > > The question that interests me is whether one can paddle more efficiently > with a wing at fast touring speeds, say, 4 to 4.5 kts. I hope so, since I > just ordered my first wing paddle (ONNO) and do not ever intend to go at max > speed. I have also committed myself to a few months of learning the stroke. > Freya said in her San Diego presentation that the wing was efficient and > that the wing stroke and paddle are what allowed her to do such long days > with no injury. > > And so we are witness to the beginning of a trend. Doug Lloyd was right, yet again. I could have started this one myself if I had only paddled without clothes more often. Oh.... wait.... Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA www.nwkayaking.net *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Hi Doug, On Friday, February 19, 2010, at 10:08:05 PM PST, you wrote: > There's the Point 65 XP18, but somewhat of an ugly boat. I suspect > that's the issue with 18-foot waterline length kayaks - they just > don't have the sex appeal of the Greenland-styled kayaks. There's always Mark Rogers' "Hawk SS", at 19'6" LOA, with a 17'5" waterline length (scroll down to see specs): http://www.superiorkayaks.com/superiorkayaks2009_006.htm Let's face it; no matter what we paddle, most of us aren't going to be pushing our boats to Olympic race speeds all day long. If my sexy G-Style boats are fast enough for the waters and conditions I paddle, I'm a happy paddler. And I get to paddle these gorgeous works of art! :) Yeah, I know. Beauty is in the subjective eye of the beholder, so even those who paddle the truly butt-ugly boats can be happy too! Life is sweet in that way. ;) > Oh Craig, please don't paddle nude. The world isn't ready. :-) Even my mind's eye is experiencing a vaguely disturbing trauma at this moment. :-/ Please Craig, value Doug's wisdom far more than you paid for it! :) -- Melissa *************************************************************************** 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, Feb 19, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Melissa Reese <willkayakforfood_at_gmx.com>wrote: > > > Oh Craig, please don't paddle nude. The world isn't ready. :-) > > > Even my mind's eye is experiencing a vaguely disturbing trauma at this > moment. :-/ Please Craig, value Doug's wisdom far more than you paid > for it! :) > > Okay... in consideration of Doug and Melissa I'll only consider paddling topless. Besides, Duane has already beat me to the "commando style" anyway. :D Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA www.nwkayaking.net *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
One of our local paddling experts has described my kayak as a "garbage skow". But I figure if I paddle nude, nobody will notice what boat I'm paddling. And if I night paddle w/o lights, nobody will notice anything. Of course the pfd will stay on to facilitate body recovery. BRC Quoting Craig Jungers <crjungers_at_gmail.com>: > On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Melissa Reese > <willkayakforfood_at_gmx.com>wrote: > >> >> > Oh Craig, please don't paddle nude. The world isn't ready. :-) >> >> >> Even my mind's eye is experiencing a vaguely disturbing trauma at this >> moment. :-/ Please Craig, value Doug's wisdom far more than you paid >> for it! :) >> >> > Okay... in consideration of Doug and Melissa I'll only consider paddling > topless. Besides, Duane has already beat me to the "commando style" anyway. > :D > > > Craig Jungers > Moses Lake, WA > www.nwkayaking.net *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Anyone who paddles nude has to do it in one of these: http://www.hammacher.com/Product/10343 This way you can also shock the fish. Greg Dunlap Santa Rosa, CA 38.28.40.80 N -122.45.16.25 W 157 feet above sea level blackey_at_sonic.net -----Original Message----- From: owner-paddlewise_at_paddlewise.net [mailto:owner-paddlewise_at_paddlewise.net]On Behalf Of Bradford R. Crain Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 1:45 PM To: Craig Jungers Cc: Melissa Reese; Paddlewise Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Wing paddle and hull speed was (Re: Who Took Shaun White Sea Kayaking?) One of our local paddling experts has described my kayak as a "garbage skow". But I figure if I paddle nude, nobody will notice what boat I'm paddling. And if I night paddle w/o lights, nobody will notice anything. Of course the pfd will stay on to facilitate body recovery. BRC Quoting Craig Jungers <crjungers_at_gmail.com>: > On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Melissa Reese > <willkayakforfood_at_gmx.com>wrote: > >> >> > Oh Craig, please don't paddle nude. The world isn't ready. :-) >> >> >> Even my mind's eye is experiencing a vaguely disturbing trauma at this >> moment. :-/ Please Craig, value Doug's wisdom far more than you paid >> for it! :) >> >> > Okay... in consideration of Doug and Melissa I'll only consider paddling > topless. Besides, Duane has already beat me to the "commando style" anyway. > :D > > > Craig Jungers > Moses Lake, WA > www.nwkayaking.net *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Ideal boat...can be used as a kayak or a salad bowl. Bradford R. Crain ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Dunlap" <blackey_at_sonic.net> Cc: "Paddlewise" <paddlewise_at_paddlewise.net> Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 2:58 PM Subject: RE: [Paddlewise] Wing paddle and hull speed was (Re: Who Took Shaun White Sea Kayaking?) > Anyone who paddles nude has to do it in one of these: > http://www.hammacher.com/Product/10343 > > This way you can also shock the fish. > > Greg Dunlap > Santa Rosa, CA > 38.28.40.80 N > -122.45.16.25 W > 157 feet above sea level > > blackey_at_sonic.net > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-paddlewise_at_paddlewise.net > [mailto:owner-paddlewise_at_paddlewise.net]On Behalf Of Bradford R. Crain > Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 1:45 PM > To: Craig Jungers > Cc: Melissa Reese; Paddlewise > Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Wing paddle and hull speed was (Re: Who Took > Shaun White Sea Kayaking?) > > > One of our local paddling experts has described my kayak as > a "garbage skow". But I figure if I paddle nude, nobody will notice > what boat I'm paddling. And if I night paddle w/o lights, nobody > will notice anything. Of course the pfd will stay on to facilitate > body recovery. > > BRC > > Quoting Craig Jungers <crjungers_at_gmail.com>: > >> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Melissa Reese >> <willkayakforfood_at_gmx.com>wrote: >> >>> >>> > Oh Craig, please don't paddle nude. The world isn't ready. :-) >>> >>> >>> Even my mind's eye is experiencing a vaguely disturbing trauma at this >>> moment. :-/ Please Craig, value Doug's wisdom far more than you paid >>> for it! :) >>> >>> >> Okay... in consideration of Doug and Melissa I'll only consider paddling >> topless. Besides, Duane has already beat me to the "commando style" > anyway. >> :D >> >> >> Craig Jungers >> Moses Lake, WA >> www.nwkayaking.net *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Paddlewisers, What Freya had to say about rudders, skegs, wings, and GPs wasn't of that must interest to me, because I take anything a sponsored paddler or someone in the "business" has to say with a grain of salt. On the other hand, what Freya had to say that fascinated me was that she only drank 2.5 liters of water per day. I thought that was very little water. I usually drink 3 liters on a 20 NM crossing and need a another 2 liters for the rest of the day. So I'm wondering if I'm drinking too much. Duane www.rollordrown.com Southern California *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Duane Strosaker wrote: > Paddlewisers, > > What Freya had to say about rudders, skegs, wings, and GPs wasn't of > that must interest to me, because I take anything a sponsored paddler or > someone in the "business" has to say with a grain of salt. I have the same skepticism. Wish I had had the access and time to examine the rudder/drop-down skeg more carefully. > On the other hand, what Freya had to say that fascinated me was that she > only drank 2.5 liters of water per day. I thought that was very little > water. I usually drink 3 liters on a 20 NM crossing and need a another 2 > liters for the rest of the day. So I'm wondering if I'm drinking too > much. I also do not understand how she could make do on that little water. It is about half to two thirds what all the reliable sources recommend for someone exercising heavily should consume. In our rain forest climate, summers, I get by on about 3 liters a day, plus the moisture in fresh fruits and vegetables, and feel Ok, but know I am a little dehydrated. -- 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/ ***************************************************************************
Dave wrote > I also do not understand how she could make do on that little water. Did you guys get the impression that it was what Freya drank from a water bottle - or her entire fluid intake (food & drink) for the day ? Different people do seem to have very different fluid-replacement needs, but the modern 'experts' vie with each other in pushing athletes to drink more and more per hour. We recently had a local runner pass out from what turned out to be fluid overload. It seems to be a modern fad, probably sponsored by the bottled water industry. Somehow, most of us survived our younger athletic activity with only the occasional drinking fountain or hose-end refreshment - and it wasn't that we didn't sweat ;-) Best Regards Paul Hayward, Auckland, New Zealand *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Duane said > What Freya had to say ... wasn't of that must interest to me, because I > take anything a sponsored paddler ... has to say with a grain of salt. I doubt that Freya spent a year of her life paddling round Australia for the sponsorship opportunities ;-) Perhaps she got a heap of cash for using a sponsor's gear - but I'd be surprised if there are many kayak businesses with that sort of Marketing budget. Yes, she's helped her profile, but I can't imagine her inheriting the Tiger Woods endorsement portfolio... So I would see her equipment choice as being fundamentally honest. Select what you believe is the very best for the job - and see if you can get it for discounted or free. If she had wanted a bit of un-sponsored gear, she could just have bought it - she's not poor. A new Epic costs only about what an air ticket to Australia does ! Duane, I think you're extending a very healthy scepticism just a little too far ;-) Best Regards Paul Hayward, Auckland, New Zealand *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Duane Strosaker wrote: >On the other hand, what Freya had to say that fascinated me was that she only drank 2.5 liters of water per day. I thought that was very little water. I usually drink 3 liters on a 20 NM crossing and need a another 2 liters for the rest of the day. So I'm wondering if I'm drinking too much. > > > Maybe this article might explain in some part why.... http://scuba-doc.com/mendivers.html HEAT: Men's difficulties don't end with cold and calories. Large men are more likely to overheat than women, the reverse of common contention. Men generate much more heat than women but dissipate it less efficiently in hot weather. Their usually smaller surface area to mass ratio means they can't radiate away as much heat as women. More troublesome, men's higher skin temperature than women makes a smaller shell to environment gradient in hot weather. The low gradient impedes heat loss. The greatest risk is to the large, round, bull-necked men you have seen, red faced and streaming sweat in moderate heat, and have probably even seen uncomfortably hot in normal room temperatures. DEHYDRATION: Noted thermal researcher C.H. Wyndham described men as "wasteful, prolific sweaters" in a paper in the Journal of Applied Physiology. You don't need a research scientist to tell you that. It's myth that men have more sweat glands than women. Men begin sweating at a lower temperature than women and, obvious to all, sweat more. However, men sweat beyond that which can be evaporated so the extra sweating confers no cooling advantage over women. Men lose more vital body fluids by volume and percent than women. Combine that with men's higher water requirement due to their size and higher metabolic budget, and they incur higher risk of dehydration. ELECTROLYTE IMBALANCE: Because of their high sweating rate and volume, men also risk the possibility of losing more electrolytes than women. Over long periods of time they theoretically might be at greater risk of electrolyte imbalance. *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Jackie Myers wrote: > Duane Strosaker wrote: > >> On the other hand, what Freya had to say that fascinated me was that >> she only drank 2.5 liters of water per day. I thought that was very >> little water. I usually drink 3 liters on a 20 NM crossing and need a >> another 2 liters for the rest of the day. So I'm wondering if I'm >> drinking too much. > Maybe this article might explain in some part why.... > > http://scuba-doc.com/mendivers.html Makes sense that women are better at getting rid of waste heat without sweating. Freya is no skinny-whinny, however. She appeared pretty solid, the night of her talk .. lotta muscle, looked to me, but not one of those athletes that is about 5% body fat. I am still in awe of her determination. Takes a lot of gumption to stick to a deal like that for almost a year. -- 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/ ***************************************************************************
The article mentions that. She still has an advantage over most males. Sorry guys... we were built to survive what mother nature threw our way.... not clobbering neighboring tribesmen with sticks. That's what we needed you for :) Dave Kruger wrote: > >> Maybe this article might explain in some part why.... >> >> http://scuba-doc.com/mendivers.html > > > Makes sense that women are better at getting rid of waste heat without > sweating. Freya is no skinny-whinny, however. She appeared pretty > solid, the night of her talk .. lotta muscle, looked to me, but not > one of those athletes that is about 5% body fat. I am still in awe of > her determination. Takes a lot of gumption to stick to a deal like > that for almost a year. *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Jackie, Great stuff! I'll keep drinking like I do. Duane *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Make sure you add the salt tablets, though :) Duane Strosaker wrote: >Jackie, > >Great stuff! I'll keep drinking like I do. *************************************************************************** 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: "Duane Strosaker> So I'm wondering if I'm drinking too much. Well I'm from Irish Canadian stock. I like a little water with my whiskey. A fine beer at days end goes down well. Champaign for special occasions and red or white wine for any meal after 12 PM. And on those occasions when I suspect I've consumed too much I down a couple of more litters - of water. Gordin Warner *************************************************************************** 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 most patriotic of all beverages is hard apple cider!!! America wouldn't be America without it! Perhaps I"m biased as I've been enjoying my first 5 gallon batch of home made cider this week, but I can put forth facts to prove it! Each night now I pop open a bottle of the tasty brew and watch the bubbles I created rise to the top bringing their appley aroma to my awaiting nose! Also in my fridge awaiting racking is a gallon of still cider and percolating away in the corner of the kitchen is my second five gallon batch burping forth CO2 to add to global warming under the active machinations of champagne yeast! Still to come tonight I'll be yeasting a gallon of agave nectar to create tequila wine! Freya can have her two point five liters of fancy bottled tap--one liter of 10% Three Legged Dog Cider and I can take on any croc! Well, maybe tonight I drank one of the 22 ouncers... On 2/26/2010 3:18 PM, Gordin Warner wrote: > From: "Duane Strosaker> > > So I'm wondering if I'm drinking too much. > > Well I'm from Irish Canadian stock. I like a little water with my > whiskey. A fine beer at days end goes down well. Champaign for > special occasions and red or white wine for any meal after 12 PM. And > on those occasions when I suspect I've consumed too much I down a > couple of more litters - of water. > > Gordin Warner > *************************************************************************** *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Doug wrote: > I'm still looking for a fast sea kayak with a good top end, that has a sea > kindly ride, low windage, responsive with some stability, and allows for an > upright stroke when required......................... I suspect > that's the issue with 18-foot waterline length kayaks - they just don't have > the sex appeal of the Greenland-styled kayaks. Gerald Foodman wrote: > > The question that interests me is whether one can paddle more efficiently > > with a wing at fast touring speeds, say, 4 to 4.5 kts. I hope so, since I > > just ordered my first wing paddle (ONNO) and do not ever intend to go at > >max speed. I have also committed myself to a few months of learning the > >stroke. > > Freya said in her San Diego presentation that the wing was efficient and > > that the wing stroke and paddle are what allowed her to do such long days > > with no injury. Using the data from a slide I photographed at Freya's slide show in Seattle I calculate that her average speed for the trip was just under 3.25 miles per hour (a little over 2.8 knots). That average speed makes me question whether such a long kayak (with its extra wetted surface and windage) and a wing paddle (preventing changing strokes much to use different muscles) were her best choices for the trip. If she had been supported and paddling unloaded all of the way, I think she may have been able to paddle faster in a narrow kayak with a shorter waterline. Given having to carry all her food and equipment, the extra volume of the longer kayak and the gear weight (to keep the ends from blowing around and adding stability) may have made that long a kayak the best compromise between efficiency and gear capacity. Whatever would have been ideal, Freya pulled off a remarkable feat of physical endurance and demonstrated a fierce determination to succeed in accomplishing her ambitious goal. Insanely ambitious to my mind, but then I'm only a mortal. *************************************************************************** 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 said : > data from a slide ... at Freya's slide show in Seattle > average speed for the trip was ... a little over 2.8 knots Matt Very good observations on Freya's speed & the trade-off between kayak capacity and efficiency. When speaking of Freya, I think Winston Churchill's comment (on education) is most apt: "The most important thing ... is appetite." With her level of focus and desire, I believe she would have succeeded in the Australian circumnavigation with any collection of gear that didn't kill her. But it is, of course, fascinating to examine what she selected (and why) from the vast range of kayaks & paddles available to her. By contrast, Paul Caffyn (now 27 years ago) had very few available kayaks or paddles to choose from for his trip round Australia. But he had that same key ingredient. For those of us in New Zealand, a legacy of Paul's trip is the complete dominance here of ruddered kayaks. Paul was still experimenting with skegs at the start of his Australian journey, before finally (mid-way) embracing the rudder. He uses one still and I don't think you can find an NZ-made sit-in kayak without one. (At Coastbusters, next weekend, we'll actually put a couple of skeg kayaks on-show as 'thought-provokers' and spend some time pushing attendees to develop their un-ruddered paddling skills. Because, of course, those skills are worth having and we all get lazy ;-) It is interesting that Freya did our South Island in 2007/8 in a rudderless kayak and then went ruddered for Australia. Has she referred to that choice in her recent slide shows ? Best Regards Paul Hayward Auckland, New Zealand *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Paddlewisers, In her San Diego slide show, Freya said she went rudder and wing, because it's the fastest and easiest way to get from point A to point B. I have to agree. Back when I used a rudder, my distance paddling was much easier, and I hardly noticed which way the wind and waves were coming from. Now that I prefer to suffer in a rudderless and skegless kayak, I always know which way the wind and waves come from, but I'm also much more connected to the sea, not to mention sometimes ticked off at it. Duane www.rollordrown.com Southern California *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Duane said: > Back when I used a rudder, my distance paddling was much easier, > and I hardly noticed which way the wind and waves were coming from. > Now that I prefer to suffer in a rudderless and skegless kayak, > I always know which way the wind and waves come from, but I'm also > much more connected to the sea, not to mention sometimes ticked off at it. Duane - a very perceptive distinction and one which may help to explain that endless argument (to rudder or not). Maybe those who prefer to omit the rudder are just more interested in the sea itself and playing with the movement of the boat in the water, while those who prefer to rudder are just more interested in interacting with the land, by way of the sea - they are a bit (or a lot) more destination-driven or focused on sight-seeing land features. There is probably a parallel here with those who prefer a fixed-gear bicycle (no free-wheel) for the 'contact', or those who prefer riding a horse bare-backed. It's a logical progression in the direction of doing the activity 'for itself' rather than doing it to accomplish something else with it... I think I need more coffee. Best Regards Paul Hayward, Auckland, New Zealand *************************************************************************** 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 Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Paul Hayward <pdh_at_mmcl.co.nz> wrote: > > Maybe those who prefer to omit the rudder are just more interested in the > sea itself and playing with the movement of the boat in the water, while > those who prefer to rudder are just more interested in interacting with the > land, by way of the sea - they are a bit (or a lot) more destination-driven > or focused on sight-seeing land features. > > I wouldn't disagree with this (although I suspect some could). I especially like the phrase "more interested in interacting with the land, by way of the sea". This doesn't answer the question for everyone but I bet it comes pretty close for a lot of us. This also addresses the difference between those who think "performance" means "able to respond quickly to paddle strokes" and those who think it defines how fast a kayak can move from edge to edge and respond to the changes in the waves. Thanks, Paul. :) Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA www.nwkayaking.net *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Freya did mention that she has moved on from her skeg kayak days (I think NS was done in a NDK Explorer with skeg). No, she still has one or more and likes them but not for distance paddling. She does feel that one should have the requisite skills to paddle without a rudder before delving into a ruddered kayak. She made a point about that specifically. She did incorporate her choice of kayak with other performance factors meaning there was a decision process that reflected an overall approach to distance paddling inclusive of a rudder but not limited to one. Obviously her bias is for stroke efficiency and so the Epic with its pivoting hull rudder which has a drop skeg housed into the rudder body gives her the piece of cake while allowing Freya to eat it too (not withstanding Matt's observations about wings and rudders and muscle fatigue, etc). He can argue with her on that, I'll shut my cake hole here, as I _know_ I'm only a mere mortal and do not want to be slayed by a Goddess. :-) She did say that the rudder worked well and doubted an over-stern rudder would have survived the surf landings on her trip. Embarrassingly (for Epic) they shipped her one of the new Epic 18's with a regular SS nut on the internal rudder pivot bolt as opposed to one with a SS nylock bolt it should have had, meaning she had rudder failure at the most inopportune time (of course!)forcing her into the water I believe, though the resultant noisy rudder, she felt, serendipititiously made a banging noise that repelled sharks. I didn't agree whole heartedly, given the large set of teeth marks on the stern of her kayak (I think she had the new one at that point). I _do_ know that if I wanted to sabotage her voyage for some sick reason, any subsequent CSI-like investigation would have found the perfect plot - yes, not using a nylock bolt. Fortunately, Epic did come through for Freya in many other ways, though Matt would probably think any long, ruddered kayak would be sabotage. :-) I spent some time with Daniel (of PW) Saturday morning helping him a bit work on his Greenland SOF at Nomad Boat Building in Victoria (I was also interviewing him on an incident off Trial Island last year involving a large number of kayakers in the water). He's setting off on a really big trip soon, though he will be paddling an SOF Baidarka he made, which I attended the launching a few weeks ago. No rudder, Greenland stick, light, fast, responsive. An interesting choice. Unlike many expeditioners, he will ostensibly be more in tune with the ocean, its movements, the subtleties of edging and hull responsiveness. Though the Baidarka is a bit more of a van than some other SOF designs, consider the seas and distances this ancient design excelled through. This is no WG Fiord cruiser. I know Jim speaks highly of the Baidarka. Perhaps a most excellent choice for Daniel. And that is what it is all about. Choice. Not what Matt feels is best, not what I prefer, not what Craig advocates. Freya's choice was hers, with reason. Paul Caffyn had a limited choice at the time of his paddle around Australia, though it is amazing he managed for so many miles with that shovel of a wooden paddler, which just goes to show you what it all really comes down to as has already been mentioned. Doug Lloyd On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Paul Hayward <pdh_at_mmcl.co.nz> wrote: > > Maybe those who prefer to omit the rudder are just more interested in the > sea itself and playing with the movement of the boat in the water, while > those who prefer to rudder are just more interested in interacting with the > land, by way of the sea - they are a bit (or a lot) more destination-driven > or focused on sight-seeing land features. > > I wouldn't disagree with this (although I suspect some could). I especially like the phrase "more interested in interacting with the land, by way of the sea". This doesn't answer the question for everyone but I bet it comes pretty close for a lot of us. This also addresses the difference between those who think "performance" means "able to respond quickly to paddle strokes" and those who think it defines how fast a kayak can move from edge to edge and respond to the changes in the waves. Thanks, Paul. :) Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA www.nwkayaking.net *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
No, which kayak did Freya use in NZ? I know Chris Duff used a rudderless and skegless Nigel Dennis Explorer to circumnavigate the South Island. I'm sure either device might have helped him at times but he didn't want the complications they added. I wanted to ask Freya how many rudder cables she went through (or repaired) but given my well known bias on the subject I didn't. Some kayaks have far more need for a rudder or skeg than others so how the kayak handles weather cocking and broaching should enter into the paddlers choice. > From: pdh_at_mmcl.co.nz > ....It is interesting that Freya did our South Island in 2007/8 in a rudderless > kayak and then went ruddered for Australia. Has she referred to that choice > in her recent slide shows ? > > Best Regards > Paul Hayward Auckland, New Zealand *************************************************************************** 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 said: > No, which kayak did Freya use in NZ? I know Chris Duff used a > rudderless and skegless Nigel Dennis Explorer to circumnavigate > the South Island. Freya's kayak for the SI was indeed an NDK - but it was one of his 3-piece ones. You may have seen something similar in some of Justine's TITS videos (Tasmania ?) where she uses a 3-piece NDK. For Freya's, NDK simplified the attachment to a series of recessed ski-boot-like clips - it was an early-model clip-together 3-piece. The inevitable happened in some big west-coast surf (on a fairly remote beach). Paul Caffyn went and rescued the damsel and got the boat patched up (he had a busy summer in 2007, with 4 people going round the SI - three of them pretty & female). As I remember, Paul then sent a rude photo to Nigel, of the boat in two pieces and Paul standing there with a chain saw... Nigel and he share a few memories, having circumnavigated the UK together, back when the world was young. Best Regards Paul Hayward, Auckland, New Zealand *************************************************************************** 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: > Using the data from a slide I photographed at Freya's slide show in Seattle I > calculate that her average speed for the trip was just under 3.25 miles per > hour (a little over 2.8 knots). That average speed makes me question whether > such a long kayak (with its extra wetted surface and windage) and a wing > paddle (preventing changing strokes much to use different muscles) were her > best choices for the trip. .... While 2.8 kts may be her average speed, there must have been numerous longer stretches where she maintained at least 4 and possibly 4.5 kts. This is quite easy to do in an Epic 18, much more so than in her previous NDK Explorer. In her San Diego lecture she explicitly expressed high satisfaction with her choice of paddle, boat, and rudder. Jerry *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Doug wrote: > I'm still looking for a fast sea kayak with a good top end, that has a sea > kindly ride, low windage, responsive with some stability, and allows for an > upright stroke when required. I have trouble with the notions of "seakindliness" and "responsive". Do they actually mean anything that different paddlers can agree on? For fast but non-racing, there are the three ruddered, plumb bow boats that come to mind; Epic 18, QCC Q700, and Nemo/Marlin. Whether they are seakindly or responsive I could not say, though I own a Q700. Doug, is your old Nordkapp seakindly and responsive? Jerry *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
No, paddlers can't agree on anything. Even the terms being used mean different things to different paddlers and designers. Frank Goodman does have an opinion regarding seakindly: File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat British sea kayaking expert Frank Goodman to help organize the points you should consider when looking ... room for paddler (higher deck), dry ride in waves, more .... kindly feel in rough seas. The paddlers sit far enough to ... >203.86.194.7/Sites/kask/gems/ChooseaKayaksafetypdf.pdf< I could care less if anyone agrees with him or not. I mostly do but for tiderace work, would like something with a bit more stability than the Nordkapp. The new LV is a superb kayak but feels a bit piggish on a distance paddle. Which, is why I'd like to try the Rockpool GT when I get a chance. I do like the concept behind the Epic 18 and 18 Sport, but I'm not sure I'd be utilizing the top end capability. Deep down, there's an underlying feeling that the perfect compromise for myself might necessarily need to be made by myself. I like Duane's direction he took in life. It was a choice that served him well and he hasn't looked back, except to look over his shoulder at the rest of us still struggling with spending mega bucks on kayaks and gear while attempting to procure the perfect production kayak. That may be obfuscation of the question, but who is getting the most satisfaction? DL Doug wrote: > I'm still looking for a fast sea kayak with a good top end, that has a sea > kindly ride, low windage, responsive with some stability, and allows for an > upright stroke when required. I have trouble with the notions of "seakindliness" and "responsive". Do they actually mean anything that different paddlers can agree on? For fast but non-racing, there are the three ruddered, plumb bow boats that come to mind; Epic 18, QCC Q700, and Nemo/Marlin. Whether they are seakindly or responsive I could not say, though I own a Q700. Doug, is your old Nordkapp seakindly and responsive? Jerry *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Seaworthy means that the boat doesn't sink. Seakindly is a more descriptive term. It means the boat handles the conditions found on the sea with gentle "kindly" motions and a dry ride. A boat that feels good in those conditions is one that takes care of you and you don't have to fight with. To me, responsive means a kayak that can turn quickly and one that responds to a lean by turning readily. I find kayaks that are responsive when leaned, and will also track reasonably well in difficult conditions, the easiest to handle in rougher water (helping to make them "seakindly"). Long kayaks with vertical ends, little rocker, little flare, and with flat sides near the ends are not likely to be very sea kindly. The long kayak with little rocker sometimes has the narrow ends picked up by two waves and the middle is left partially hanging between the waves (think turkey on a spit) making them very tippy at that point. Vertical ended, long waterline length, kayaks are not likely to be responsive to turning. Large flat vertical areas at the bow and stern (a common occurance with a kayak with straight vertical ends because then much flare is difficult to have at the bow and stern) get slapped about by crossing waves much more than flared end kayaks that are as much lifted by those side waves as slapped sideways by them. Other things being equal, longer kayaks are also harder to turn in strong winds, especially when unloaded and in bigger wind waves, because of the long lever arm offered to the wind. Most shorter kayaks (of reasonable hull shape) are easier to paddle than the longest sea kayaks up to the 4 to 4.5 knot range. . I seriously doubt Freya maintained more than 4.5 knots for any length of time with a gear loaded kayak. She carried all her gear for 80 percent of her epic journey. Gee, maybe she chose an Epic kayak for the apt name;-) > Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Wing paddle and hull speed was (Re: Who Took Shaun White Sea Kayaking?) > From: gfoodma_at_earthlink.net > Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 22:41:37 -0800 > CC: crjungers_at_gmail.com; marinerkayaks_at_msn.com; paddlewise_at_paddlewise.net > To: douglloyd_at_shaw.ca > > Doug wrote: > > I'm still looking for a fast sea kayak with a good top end, that has a sea > > kindly ride, low windage, responsive with some stability, and allows for an > > upright stroke when required. > > I have trouble with the notions of "seakindliness" and "responsive". Do they actually mean anything that different paddlers can agree on? > > For fast but non-racing, there are the three ruddered, plumb bow boats that come to mind; Epic 18, QCC Q700, and Nemo/Marlin. Whether they are seakindly or responsive I could not say, though I own a Q700. Doug, is your old Nordkapp seakindly and responsive? > > Jerry *************************************************************************** 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 said: > I doubt Freya maintained more than 4.5 knots for any length > of time with a gear loaded kayak Matt, I'm being lazy asking you - I should really go and read up lots of SK back issues ;-) I believe the usual point where the hull's wake drag starts to overwhelm the skin drag is around 3 to 5 knots - which is why one looks for a longer kayak if one wants to spend time at higher speeds. Most tests are done with (essentially) an empty kayak - with say 20 Kg of kayak and 80 Kg of paddler and PFD. Let's say 100 KG as a nice round number. What happens when Freya adds 50 Kg of gear and water into an Epic ? Obviously, both more skin (the kayak's, of course ;-) is dragging and the hull is lying deeper and creating a bigger (taking more energy) wake. Something tells me that if you add this 50% to the displacement, you will only add perhaps 20% to the wetted area - but increase the draft and so the wake (?) - by 50%. I think these figures are about right if the hall has no flare at all on the beam or the ends - which is a gross simplification, of course. If that is even remotely true, then loading up a kayak should increase the importance of length. Let's say that you have enough in the tank to overcome the extra 20% skin drag - but you are going to run out of puff a lot sooner with the wake drag kicking in sooner (and being worse) by 50%. So you should be willing to trade more skin drag (lower down in the speed range) for less wake drag higher up in the range - the classic argument for a longer boat. Then, if (and only if) you have the horsepower of a Freya, you can really motor... Can one generalise on any increase in loading and its effect on the kayak's suitability for higher speed work ? Best Regards Paul Hayward, Auckland, New Zealand *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Paul Hayward wrote: > > Matt, I'm being lazy asking you - I should really go and read up lots of SK > back issues ;-) No need to get the back issues (but I have many hundreds of them I'd love to unload) go to www.marinerkayaks.com and find the "Downloads" link. There you can download a very similar spreadsheet to the one I use to calculate the estimated drag of kayaks. These are all calculated at the weight of the kayak plus 250 pounds for paddler and gear. We figured a 150 pound paddler with 100 pounds of gear and water would be a good average for kayak touring. All the kayaks that were measured and run through the spreadsheet are listed below with their dimensions and results. You could take that data and add a few formulas to the spreadsheet and do an analysis of the factors. I thibk you will find that for sea kayaks over about 13 feet long that hull speed isn't much of an issue until around 4 knots (with 250 pounds aboard). If I recall correctly the 13' 5" long by 23" wide Coaster had lower drag at 4 knots than the majority of the kayaks on that long list. > > I believe the usual point where the hull's wake drag starts to overwhelm the > skin drag is around 3 to 5 knots - which is why one looks for a longer kayak > if one wants to spend time at higher speeds. > > Most tests are done with (essentially) an empty kayak - with say 20 Kg of > kayak and 80 Kg of paddler and PFD. Let's say 100 KG as a nice round number. > > What happens when Freya adds 50 Kg of gear and water into an Epic ? > Obviously, both more skin (the kayak's, of course ;-) is dragging and the > hull is lying deeper and creating a bigger (taking more energy) wake. The paddling tests are usually with a lightly loaded kayak but the drag calculations are with a significant load. I think Freya said that at times, after resupply, she had something like 100 Kg of gear load. If this is so she needs the added length to have a narrow kayak and enough volume to float that load. The other choice to handle that much weight would have been a wider kayak but that would have hurt her efficiency even more. > > Something tells me that if you add this 50% to the displacement, you will > only add perhaps 20% to the wetted area - but increase the draft and so the > wake (?) - by 50%. I think these figures are about right if the hall has no > flare at all on the beam or the ends - which is a gross simplification, of > course. I don't have exact data but I think you will find that neither the wetted area or the wave drag will increase nearly that much with added weight. Somewhere I used to get raw data from Sea Kayaker that told how mauc extra weight it took to increase the draft 1". Multiplying that 1" (1/12 of a foot) by around 2.1 times the length of the waterline should give a good approximation as to how much wetted surface to add to the listed wetted surface. My recolection is that ypically it took about 90 pounds to increase the draft of an average kayak one inch. > > If that is even remotely true, then loading up a kayak should increase the > importance of length. Let's say that you have enough in the tank to overcome > the extra 20% skin drag - but you are going to run out of puff a lot sooner > with the wake drag kicking in sooner (and being worse) by 50%. The reality is that most paddlers can not maintain a pace that a longer waterline kayak will be of any benefit to them because they rarely ever go fast enough where wave drag is much of an issue. By making the kayak longer you are adding even more friction to overcome and that increased friction is causing drag at all speeds. The higher hull speed gained is only enjoyed by the most powerfull paddlers when they are racing. Adding weight increased the wetted surface friction so it is even less likely the gear laden paddler will ever benefit (in speed) from the longer kayak. They might well increase the gear capacity with less of a penalty that making the kayak wider would entail though. > > So you should be willing to trade more skin drag (lower down in the speed > range) for less wake drag higher up in the range - the classic argument for > a longer boat. > > Then, if (and only if) you have the horsepower of a Freya, you can really > motor... I'm sure Freya is a strong paddler but when you start fighting gravity (hull speed) you can dump in twice the energy and only gain a small fraction of a knot in speed. In a trip like Freya's efficiency is what counts and you gain that by staying under the point where wave drag is a significant factor. When we were younger and more energetic Cam and I could push our heavily loaded (original) Mariners (16' 1" waterline by about a 20" waterline beam) at about 4.5 knots for several hours at a time essentially competing against each other. Back then (early 1980's) I also won several races in that original Mariner and when I got second or third it was usually because male former Olympic team member(s) was in the race. I was paddling the empty Mariner at around 5.5 knots for 5 or 6 miles. I'm sure Freya was in better condition than I but I doubt she was pushing her (admitedly slightly faster) kayak that fast for very long. > Can one generalise on any increase in loading and its effect on the kayak's > suitability for higher speed work ? > > Best Regards > Paul Hayward, Auckland, New Zealand *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Seaworthy means more than just not sinking. For instance, a boat that requires constant effort on one side in a cross wind is not seaworthy, nor is a lee-cocker that cannot be turned up wind. Nor is one that quickly broaches in following conditions. Nor is one that is so tender it requires constant vigilance. Seakindly seems to me just an expression of personal preference. Is Freya's Epic more or less seakindly than her Explorer? Is your Mariner II more or less seakindly than your Coaster? Is Doug's Nordkapp more seakindly with its rudder than without? If responsiveness means easy turning, then a white water boat is more responsive than a sea kayak. I would much prefer the Mariner II to the more responsive Coaster for travelling A to B. A surf ski that quickly picks up the smallest following sea is extremely responsive, yet difficult to turn. On Feb 22, 2010, at 12:09 AM, MATT MARINER BROZE wrote: > Seaworthy means that the boat doesn't sink. Seakindly is a more descriptive term. It means the boat handles the conditions found on the sea with gentle "kindly" motions and a dry ride. A boat that feels good in those conditions is one that takes care of you and you don't have to fight with. To me, responsive means a kayak that can turn quickly and one that responds to a lean by turning readily. I find kayaks that are responsive when leaned, and will also track reasonably well in difficult conditions, the easiest to handle in rougher water (helping to make them "seakindly"). > > Long kayaks with vertical ends, little rocker, little flare, and with flat sides near the ends are not likely to be very sea kindly. The long kayak with little rocker sometimes has the narrow ends picked up by two waves and the middle is left partially hanging between the waves (think turkey on a spit) making them very tippy at that point. Vertical ended, long waterline length, kayaks are not likely to be responsive to turning. Large flat vertical areas at the bow and stern (a common occurance with a kayak with straight vertical ends because then much flare is difficult to have at the bow and stern) get slapped about by crossing waves much more than flared end kayaks that are as much lifted by those side waves as slapped sideways by them. Other things being equal, longer kayaks are also harder to turn in strong winds, especially when unloaded and in bigger wind waves, because of the long lever arm offered to the wind. > > Most shorter kayaks (of reasonable hull shape) are easier to paddle than the longest sea kayaks up to the 4 to 4.5 knot range. . I seriously doubt Freya maintained more than 4.5 knots for any length of time with a gear loaded kayak. She carried all her gear for 80 percent of her epic journey. Gee, maybe she chose an Epic kayak for the apt name;-) > > > Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Wing paddle and hull speed was (Re: Who Took Shaun White Sea Kayaking?) > > From: gfoodma_at_earthlink.net > > Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 22:41:37 -0800 > > CC: crjungers_at_gmail.com; marinerkayaks_at_msn.com; paddlewise_at_paddlewise.net > > To: douglloyd_at_shaw.ca > > > > Doug wrote: > > > I'm still looking for a fast sea kayak with a good top end, that has a sea > > > kindly ride, low windage, responsive with some stability, and allows for an > > > upright stroke when required. > > > > I have trouble with the notions of "seakindliness" and "responsive". Do they actually mean anything that different paddlers can agree on? > > > > For fast but non-racing, there are the three ruddered, plumb bow boats that come to mind; Epic 18, QCC Q700, and Nemo/Marlin. Whether they are seakindly or responsive I could not say, though I own a Q700. Doug, is your old Nordkapp seakindly and responsive? > > > > Jerry *************************************************************************** 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 Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Gerald Foodman <gfoodma_at_earthlink.net>wrote: > Seaworthy means more than just not sinking. For instance, a boat that > requires constant effort on one side in a cross wind is not seaworthy, nor > is a lee-cocker that cannot be turned up wind. Nor is one that quickly > broaches in following conditions. Nor is one that is so tender it requires > constant vigilance. > The best definition of "seaworthy" as far as I'm concerned is: ready for a voyage at sea. Matt's definition just simplifies that. I don't think it has anything to do with handling but simply means that a boat can undertake the task for which it was designed. A vessel that was once seaworthy may not be if maintenance has been neglected or if it has been modified. And a ship that rolls like a bitch can still be seaworthy. Any vessel can be overcome by sea conditions but in general I agree about the lee-cocking and weather-cocking. However I think the "tenderness" in kayaks is more of a performance issue to many kayakers. > > Seakindly seems to me just an expression of personal preference. Is > Freya's Epic more or less seakindly than her Explorer? Is your Mariner II > more or less seakindly than your Coaster? Is Doug's Nordkapp more seakindly > with its rudder than without? > Well, other than the rudder question, I'd agree with this. To me it means comfort. I've sailed in ships that were seaworthy but not seakindly and, in fact, I have slalomed in my stocking feet across the linoleum floor of my stateroom on a tanker that rolled 30 degrees from side-to-side. Luckily the chairs had rubber feet so I could use them as gates. That part was fun; trying to sleep wasn't. A boat that hobby-horses in a seaway or one that pounds going into a sea is not one I'd think of as seakindly but which might be, in all respects, seaworthy. In kayaks it's more personal. I like a dry ride so for me a boat that slices through waves would not be as seakindly as one that moves over them. Some would disagree with this, however. > > If responsiveness means easy turning, then a white water boat is more > responsive than a sea kayak. I would much prefer the Mariner II to the more > responsive Coaster for travelling A to B. A surf ski that quickly picks up > the smallest following sea is extremely responsive, yet difficult to turn. > Now you are really getting into personal preference. I've read statements from Doug Lloyd where he defines "responsive" as moving quickly from edge to edge. It seems to me that this would be a kayak that requires constant attention but some paddlers actually *like* that. I have always thought that a kayak that responds quickly and accurately to paddle strokes is "responsive". I wouldn't consider a surfski to be responsive if it's hard to turn... but I'd agree that it could be very responsive to the sea. Or even responsive in terms of accelerating quickly. In order to respond to the term "responsive" you have to understand exactly where the paddler is coming from. Until Doug wrote that I thought he was crazy thinking of his Nordy as "responsive". :D No single kayak will fit every definition of responsive or seakindly. And a brand new kayak with a leaking skeg box or hatch covers would not be seaworthy. It would probably sink. Craig Jungers Moses Lake, WA www.nwkayaking.net *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Gerald The following is from Merriam-Webster seaB7worB7thy Pronunciation: \KsD-K wIr-thD\ Function: adjective Date: 1798 : fit or safe for a sea voyage <a seaworthy ship> All those things you added are more properly part of seakindly rather than seaworthy as they describe the handling of the vessel not whether it is fit or safe for a sea voyage. Seaworthy also includes the crew. Just because a boat is a bear for you to handle does not make it unseaworthy in the hands of someone who has the skills to deal with those problems with its seakindliness. To my mind the kayak you describe is definitely not seakindly. This link discusses the legal definition of seaworthy. http://www.888-go-longy.com/legal-definition-of-seaworthiness.php Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Wing paddle and hull speed was (Re: Who Took Shaun White Sea Kayaking?) From: gfoodma_at_earthlink.net Seaworthy means more than just not sinking. For instance, a boat that requires constant effort on one side in a cross wind is not seaworthy, nor is a lee-cocker that cannot be turned up wind. Nor is one that quickly broaches in following conditions. Nor is one that is so tender it requires constant vigilance. Seakindly seems to me just an expression of personal preference. Is Freya's Epic more or less seakindly than her Explorer? Is your Mariner II more or less seakindly than your Coaster? Is Doug's Nordkapp more seakindly with its rudder than without? If responsiveness means easy turning, then a white water boat is more responsive than a sea kayak. I would much prefer the Mariner II to the more responsive Coaster for travelling A to B. A surf ski that quickly picks up the smallest following sea is extremely responsive, yet difficult to turn. On Feb 22, 2010, at 12:09 AM, MATT MARINER BROZE wrote: Seaworthy means that the boat doesn't sink. Seakindly is a more descriptive term. It means the boat handles the conditions found on the sea with gentle "kindly" motions and a dry ride. A boat that feels good in those conditions is one that takes care of you and you don't have to fight with. To me, responsive means a kayak that can turn quickly and one that responds to a lean by turning readily. I find kayaks that are responsive when leaned, and will also track reasonably well in difficult conditions, the easiest to handle in rougher water (helping to make them "seakindly"). *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Gerald said: >Seaworthy means more than just not sinking. For instance, a boat that requires constant effort on one side in a cross wind is not seaworthy, nor is a lee-cocker that cannot be turned up wind. Nor is one that quickly broaches in following conditions. Nor is one that is so tender it requires constant vigilance.< Well yeah, seaworthy means worthy of handling the sea: boats with the attributes you describe would be poorly designed ones indeed - and that would translate many ways, such as kayak A is unseaworthy when the skeg fails (or just horrible to control directionally) and needs a rudder to cross any great distance in a quartering sea, kayak B can't turn upwind in anything over 25 knots without super-human effort and is very dangerous in the minds of many paddlers; and a prudent paddler shouldn't use kayak C on open water. So, Jerry you have a point in terms of the practical application of the term seaworthy. >Seakindly seems to me just an expression of personal preference. Is Freya's Epic more or less seakindly than her Explorer? Is your Mariner II more or less seakindly than your Coaster? Is Doug's Nordkapp more seakindly with its rudder than without?< As has been pointed out by Craig, et al, seakindly is a nautical term well understood in marine engineering terminology. Yet, preference and design do come into play. Compare and contrast trans-global racing yachts where there is a substantial difference in safety and comfort between a vessel that can surf lower southern seas with aplomb yet suffer dramatically in steep, short head seas. I like the way my old Nordkapp sat in the trough between waves with its fine entry and exit lines. I'm sorry if the upsets anyone. Probably the Mariner Express is an example of a sea kayak with the best seakindly attributes possible, but not as good in rock gardens as the Coaster and not as able to deliver as the Mariner II for distance travel, yet nevertheless a nice compromise in length, gear capacity, stability, responsive maneuverability, and yes, seakindlyness. I'm surprised more paddlers didn't pick up on this model, though I don't have the sales figures. I'm hoping to try one out one day now that I probably can't fit an Elan. Matt and Cam used to advertize that their kayaks were only for the few - implying only the discriminating paddler need apply. As not all their models caught on worldwide, either Matt and Cam struck a brilliant marketing campaign slogan with those adds or the designs really didn't deliver and therefore only a few paddlers bought in. There is certainly enough evidence these days from paddlers thrice or more removed from directly dealing with the Broze brothers, that we know there is truth to the claims of Mariner performance. So perhaps there was some other issue (lack of bulkheads or something, I don't know). >If responsiveness means easy turning, then a white water boat is more responsive than a sea kayak. I would much prefer the Mariner II to the more responsive Coaster for travelling A to B. A surf ski that quickly picks up the smallest following sea is extremely responsive, yet difficult to turn.< A whitewater kayak isn't bad with an add-on skeg. Oh the early days... :-) I've already defined what responsive and seakindly mean to me. Jerry, you have been kind enough to take the time to challenge me to defend certain attributes of the Nordkapp which to my mind, while boring for some folks, has helped me clarify what I want and don't want in my next kayak. Life circumstances have slowed down the next boat acquisition, though my wife's tumor has seemingly shrunk for now, so I'm making hay with some other things while I can and will eventually figure out my next boat. I'd certainly like to get my own shop in the backyard so I can do more design and building, but that isn't in the cards right now. As for Freya, she did mention impending heavy seas, building gales, and fast moving bodies of water when asked about Brit boats versus the plumb-bowed, fast moving Epic and her paddle-stroke style. Moreover, she felt the upright, knees-up paddling position with the Epic and wing paddle gives a superior advantage to move out of those aforementioned sea conditions prior to impact. Add copy, I don't know. Matt has his add copy too. So did Valley Canoe, though we do know the Epic is newer on the evolutionary scale. I certainly can't discount her comments, though this cowboy prefers a low decked, tight fitting, responsive side-to side, round shallow arched hulled kayak, and moving away from that "comfort zone" will be an effort for me. The Caribou discussion showed us just how much personal preference plays into all this, though it is the dirty little secret amongst SOF paddlers as to just how much weather helm some of these designs have, but that doesn't distract from their fan base, the useful attempts to reproduce them with basic materials, or take design considerations from them for modern glass kayaks. Heck, none of this mattered to any of you in 100 years ago or will it 100 years from now. Enjoying your moments on the sea in whatever craft turns your crank is ultimately what it is all about: witness Dave and his countless hours on the Columbia and VI's west coast in a kayak I can't even remember the model's name - but know how much that kayak has meant to his enjoyment of life and the limited time we are given. Doug Lloyd On Feb 22, 2010, at 12:09 AM, MATT MARINER BROZE wrote: > Seaworthy means that the boat doesn't sink. Seakindly is a more descriptive term. It means the boat handles the conditions found on the sea with gentle "kindly" motions and a dry ride. A boat that feels good in those conditions is one that takes care of you and you don't have to fight with. To me, responsive means a kayak that can turn quickly and one that responds to a lean by turning readily. I find kayaks that are responsive when leaned, and will also track reasonably well in difficult conditions, the easiest to handle in rougher water (helping to make them "seakindly"). > > Long kayaks with vertical ends, little rocker, little flare, and with flat sides near the ends are not likely to be very sea kindly. The long kayak with little rocker sometimes has the narrow ends picked up by two waves and the middle is left partially hanging between the waves (think turkey on a spit) making them very tippy at that point. Vertical ended, long waterline length, kayaks are not likely to be responsive to turning. Large flat vertical areas at the bow and stern (a common occurance with a kayak with straight vertical ends because then much flare is difficult to have at the bow and stern) get slapped about by crossing waves much more than flared end kayaks that are as much lifted by those side waves as slapped sideways by them. Other things being equal, longer kayaks are also harder to turn in strong winds, especially when unloaded and in bigger wind waves, because of the long lever arm offered to the wind. > > Most shorter kayaks (of reasonable hull shape) are easier to paddle than the longest sea kayaks up to the 4 to 4.5 knot range. . I seriously doubt Freya maintained more than 4.5 knots for any length of time with a gear loaded kayak. She carried all her gear for 80 percent of her epic journey. Gee, maybe she chose an Epic kayak for the apt name;-) > > > Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Wing paddle and hull speed was (Re: Who Took Shaun White Sea Kayaking?) > > From: gfoodma_at_earthlink.net > > Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 22:41:37 -0800 > > CC: crjungers_at_gmail.com; marinerkayaks_at_msn.com; paddlewise_at_paddlewise.net > > To: douglloyd_at_shaw.ca > > > > Doug wrote: > > > I'm still looking for a fast sea kayak with a good top end, that has a sea > > > kindly ride, low windage, responsive with some stability, and allows for an > > > upright stroke when required. > > > > I have trouble with the notions of "seakindliness" and "responsive". Do they actually mean anything that different paddlers can agree on? > > > > For fast but non-racing, there are the three ruddered, plumb bow boats that come to mind; Epic 18, QCC Q700, and Nemo/Marlin. Whether they are seakindly or responsive I could not say, though I own a Q700. Doug, is your old Nordkapp seakindly and responsive? > > > > Jerry *************************************************************************** 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 - 16:33:53 PDT