- Wes. Could I suggest you post your Toto question on the dwforum group (Chuck had a Toto) or the Michalak group. Even better would be the Duckworks plan listingMessage 1 of 75 , Dec 1, 2005View SourceWes. Could I suggest you post your Toto question on the dwforum group
(Chuck had a Toto) or the Michalak group. Even better would be the
Duckworks plan listing
Bryant - who has a Toto laid out for cutting/building this spring.
--- In email@example.com, "adventures_in_astrophotography"
> > I'm a big fan of the work on your web site.
> Thanks very much!
> > I'm considering something
> > similar to a Toto, but am torn between my usual tiny boat desires,
> > weight vs. sea worthiness. I've never used a kayak and am hesitant
> > go that route. There's no questioning their sea worthiness, but I do
> > question the comfort level.
> > Would
> > you care to comment on the stability of the open canoe type Toto?
> > Thanks.
> We've only had the Totos out a couple of times since I finished them
> this past summer. I'd say they have about 6 miles under them, all in
> relatively wake-free water and light winds. Because the water in the
> reservoir we boat at is always cold, I decked over the bow and stern
> sections to provide lots of positive bouyancy and hopefully allow a
> person to get back aboard after going over. I still have doubts about
> whether reentry of the boat from the water can actually be achieved,
> and the water is colder than I care to experiment in. If we take one
> up to McConaughy next summer, I'll try it there.
> Having said that, I haven't ever felt unstable in these canoes, and
> since your butt is right on the bottom, it's as stable as you can make
> it. The v-shaped entry certainly cuts through small waves and wakes
> with no fuss, and the truncated v-shaped midsection seems to take small
> waves from abeam pretty well. Nevertheless, we follow the shoreline
> fairly closely, and always wear PFDs - anyone using a boat like this
> should ALWAYS wear a PFD. Considering how cheap and fast these are to
> build, I wouldn't hestitate to try one out if I were you. They are fun
> and relaxing boats to use, and if it doesn't work out, your loss of
> time and money is minimal.
> Jon Kolb
- I m not sure the quoting is still accurate in this thread. In any case, I m sure the Dynel is good if the issue is just abrasion. However, I think at theMessage 75 of 75 , Apr 5, 2006View SourceI'm not sure the quoting is still accurate in this thread. In any
case, I'm sure the Dynel is good if the issue is just abrasion.
However, I think at the partners, and perhaps elsewhere, localized
crushing is part of the picture. In that case I'm guessing fiberglass
would remain superior. Not that you couldn't have a bit of dynel over it.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Harry James <welshman@...> wrote:
> One layer of dynel is 6 times as abrasion resistance as 1 layer of 6oz
> glass per some tests in Boatbuilder several years ago.
> pvanderwaart wrote:
> >> What about armoring the mast with fiberglass and epoxy at the
> > partners and other wear
> >> points? Or wrapping it with some other thing to prevent wear?