This design reminds of the divergent opinions on Eeek! and the 12'
Pirogue (Peero) as to what might be considered good and what might be
not much of a boat, & etc. Yes, sinking the transom won't apply to
Eeek!, which with its pointy stern can accept a wide range of loading,
but that isn't the point - clearly Paddling Skiff has a specific load
in mind. More to the point is height. I'm not exactly sure of the
topsides height for Padddling Skiff, but from Bruce's depiction it
would seem greater than that of Peero.
A large part in PCB at one point saying that Peero was better than
Eeek! was, relatively, the quite low height of the sides that allowed
for acceptable use of a double paddle in Peero, but not in Eeek!
As Paddling Skiff was designed for paddling by small, quickly out-
growing children, the query arises as to why the topsides height was
not as low as that of Peero; nor as meant for little kids, then
relatively lower again?
--- In email@example.com, "Bruce Hallman" <bruce@...> wrote:
> > This trade-off makes me wonder if it actually makes sense to
> > add enough rocker to get the transom completely out of the
> > water? Obviously Bolger doesn't think so in this case ...
> Actually, Bolger's waterline is drawn for two children, at 160 lbs. I
> modeled it in FreeShip because I wanted to get a better visualization
> of the 3D shape of the hull and also because I was trying to evaluate
> what it would be like if the boat was floating me personally, hence
> the 200 pound waterline. It *is* a very small boat, and dragging a
> inch or two of the transom would not cause a crisis I think.