Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Cedar Strip Canoes] Re: What canoe shall I choose?

Expand Messages
  • charles.k.scott@dartmouth.edu
    ... Everything you said registered perfectly in my mind (for whatever it s worth) until you got to this last sentence. In a word, I worry that 15 feet may be
    Message 1 of 21 , Aug 25, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      --- You wrote:
      > Anyway, this has been a long explanation for why I chose the Freedom 15.


      Everything you said registered perfectly in my mind (for whatever
      it's worth) until you got to this last sentence. In a word, I worry
      that 15 feet may be too short for you guys, 'specially if you're on a
      quest for max primary stability in a tandem. Heck, my Merlin is 15-6"
      and it's a one-holer. I'm a big believer in length-equals-stability,
      here's Uncle Kurt's Story Time as to why:

      As something of an experiment in 2003, a friend and I built three
      examples of the Squeedunk Cormorant 16, which is a Greenland style
      hard chine stitch-n-glue solo sea kayak from free plans on the 'net.
      It is reputed to feature scarce primary stability but tons of
      secondary, making it no beginner's boat and requiring a learning
      curve to master, but rewarding good technique richly. Two of the
      boats were (are) 16-footers per plans, and one was stretched to
      17-3"; all were 22" max beam. Of the two 16's, one had very little
      deadrise and the other had enough to qualify it as a deep-vee by
      anyone's standards. Quite surprisingly, the deadrise made zero
      difference in stability and both 16s handle identically in every
      respect. The 17-footer has far more primary stability, though. The
      extra 15 inches "tamed the beast" and made it docile as any
      commercial sea kayak aimed at a broad market.

      For my money, it is a much better economy to watch every ounce that
      goes into the build rather than lop length off. Employ the usual
      lightweight building techniques: stick to cedar as much as humanly
      possible; when forced to use other wood species, select those
      species, yea even unto individual pieces thereof, for lightest weight
      since it varies so wildly. Be a miser with epoxy since excess epoxy
      accounts for something like 90% of excess weight in homemade boats
      (without adding any extra strength; using too much hardware comes in
      close second). I believe a 17-footer can readily be built to 45
      pounds as long as the builder adopts a mind-set to keep it light, and
      a true maniac (such as yours truly) can in all likelihood knock a
      full ten pounds off that .. and more yet if a dedicated racer is the
      desired result.

      Sorry, don't mean to lecture; I officiously preach my lightweight
      building views as a general thing and probably ought to just shut up
      already. Also, a lot of my comments are borne from having organized
      the Texas Kayak Builders Bash for six years and examining so very
      many home-brewed boats closely, and kicked 'em around in endless
      discussions with their owners.
      --- end of quote ---

      Nice response Kurt, thanks. Unfortunately, the Winisk kind of contradicts the "longer equals better primary stability" concept. It is over 17.5 feet. It's supposed to be 17.5' but it ended up being longer by a few inches, somehow. As I've commented previously, the Winisk is one of the least stable canoe's in the primary stability area of any canoe I've ever paddled.

      It's all in the hull design, which is somewhat narrow for it's length, but also has a shallow V bottom. I'm assuming that it does have good secondary stability, but my wife is so uncomfortable with it leaning even a tiny smidgeon of a little bit, that we don't often let it get there, without me hearing about it from my wife.

      When researching designs, I settled on the Winisk for all the qualities that I'm sure it excels at: V hull at the gunwales to prevent splash in (no tumblehome), assymetric hull, narrow bow for good penetration and good glide. I thought that the 17' 6" length would come in handy if we took visitors with us.

      Well, in the cold light of reality, all these design features have worked against us. We are very unlikely to bring anyone with us so the extra length is not needed, great glide and ease of paddling is not a good feature if my wife is too scared to go out in it. It's also heavier that she wanted. Finally, we don't need superb seakeeping ability because we flat do not venture out in winds high enough to kick up waves. Nor do we go camping so the 700 lbs worth of load it can carry is again wasted on us.

      I was enthralled with the design and had not in my life paddled anything like the Winisk, so I did not know what a "performance" hull handled like. That's another bad to me, we should have tried something similar out.

      The Freedom 15 is rated high in primary stability on the Bear Mountain Boat web page. Only two canoes are higher and both are larger. When I build the Freedom 15, I will be taking a very critical look at the hull design, especially the shape of the forms along the keel. I may flatten them out a bit if it seems necessary.

      When we venture out, the canoe is empty. We never carry ballast and putting water bags in to weigh the canoe down to increase primary stability seems to be defeating the purpose of a leisurely paddle. We want a minimum of fuss: just put the canoe in the water, stick the paddles in and go. And not have to concentrate like we're tightrope walking the entire time we're out.

      I took a look at a canoe called the "Redbird" and that thing is absolutely dead flat from one chine to the other. It has really good primary stability. Don't know how it paddles through the water but I'd guess it wouldn't be as efficient as the Winisk. On the other hand, the Winisk doesn't paddle so good upside down, we discovered.

      Corky Scott
    • J. R. Sloan
      ... that canoe demonstrates good primary stability, once you get past the bilge curve it is absolutely flat, no curvature whatsoever. Doesn t look like there
      Message 2 of 21 , Aug 25, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In cedarstripcanoes@yahoogroups.com, charles.k.scott@... wrote:
        >
        > --- You wrote:

        > I went to that website and looked at the plans. It's no wonder
        that canoe demonstrates good primary stability, once you get past the
        bilge curve it is absolutely flat, no curvature whatsoever. Doesn't
        look like there is much in the way of rocker either. I'm not saying
        this is bad, just an observation.
        >
        > Corky Scott
        >
        Yup...flat does mean stability, so does wide. Adding rocker, adds
        maneuverability, important in rivers and rapids; in lakes, not so
        much. Likewise, narrowing beam increases both speed and tenderness
        (tippiness).

        To me wider is better in the way of rambunctious grandkids, ladies of
        my age or so, and a general reluctance to suffer a dipping. The same
        goes for the miscellaneous pets folks take aboard. {I actually saw a
        dogfight on a local lake last weekend between two boats that took
        their big watchdogs along for a ride.}

        One drawback to wider & longer: increased weight, an issue as I have
        gotten older. Also, as I added amenities (airtight compartments,
        softer seats, and the like) I added more weight. Hmmm.

        So, I bought a cheap trailer. Works fine.

        JR Sloan
      • J. R. Sloan
        ... plans say that it will weigh 74 pounds? For a 16 foot stripper, that sounds pretty heavy. ... Redwood may be a little heavier than cedar; in my
        Message 3 of 21 , Aug 25, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In cedarstripcanoes@yahoogroups.com, charles.k.scott@... wrote:
          >
          > Regarding the Redwood 16 foot canoe, can someone tell me why the
          plans say that it will weigh 74 pounds? For a 16 foot stripper, that
          sounds pretty heavy.
          >
          > Corky Scott
          >
          Redwood may be a little heavier than cedar; in my experience, the
          salvaged redwood I used was noticeably heavier and more brittle than
          the cedar I had available. But the redwood was 'way more attractive, I
          thought.

          JR
        • Anthony Spezio
          Having built three Redwood Canoes and none from Cedar, I can t comment on this. It is hard for me to believe the the 16 footers made from those plans weighed
          Message 4 of 21 , Aug 26, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Having built three Redwood Canoes and none from Cedar, I can't comment on this. It is hard for me to believe the the 16 footers made from those plans weighed 75 pounds. I was able to handle it by myself getting on and off the van. I even did some portaging with it. I am not a big person.I am 5' 7"at that time I weighed about 150. The hull we just finished ready to sand, is made from Cypress, it seems to be real light. If I can get a way to weigh them, I will post what I came up with.
            The second hull will be the left over Redwood I still have and some Cedar strips I will be acquiring in the next week or so.
            Arkansas Tony

            --- On Mon, 8/25/08, J. R. Sloan <jr_sloan@...> wrote:
            From: J. R. Sloan <jr_sloan@...>
            Subject: Re: [Cedar Strip Canoes] What canoe shall I choose?
            To: cedarstripcanoes@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Monday, August 25, 2008, 11:26 PM











            --- In cedarstripcanoes@ yahoogroups. com, charles.k.scott@ ... wrote:

            >

            > Regarding the Redwood 16 foot canoe, can someone tell me why the

            plans say that it will weigh 74 pounds? For a 16 foot stripper, that

            sounds pretty heavy.

            >

            > Corky Scott

            >

            Redwood may be a little heavier than cedar; in my experience, the

            salvaged redwood I used was noticeably heavier and more brittle than

            the cedar I had available. But the redwood was 'way more attractive, I

            thought.



            JR





























            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Anthony Spezio
            I think I mentioned, the MI plans were the first I had seem or heard of Strip Canoes. That is what I built. I did notice it had a flat wide bottom compared to
            Message 5 of 21 , Aug 26, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              I think I mentioned, the MI plans were the first I had seem or heard of Strip Canoes. That is what I built. I did notice it had a flat wide bottom compared to theĀ  Old Town Yankee Canvas canoe I once had and the plastic Canoes we had at Scout Camp. This impressed me because my wife and my kids had never been in a canoe and I knew it would be stable.
              We were not concerned with speed. The canoe was used on wide rivers, small creeks and on lakes. The person that this first hull is being built for was also impressed for that same reason. It will be used on a lake most of the time. He and his wife had only been in a canoe one time on a day long trip down a river in Louisiana, that was just about a month ago. They want a canoe that is real stable as they are in their late sixty's. By the way, I am way past that age.
              Arkansas Tony
              Arkansas Tony

              --- On Mon, 8/25/08, J. R. Sloan <jr_sloan@...> wrote:
              From: J. R. Sloan <jr_sloan@...>
              Subject: Re: [Cedar Strip Canoes] What canoe shall I choose?
              To: cedarstripcanoes@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Monday, August 25, 2008, 11:24 PM











              --- In cedarstripcanoes@ yahoogroups. com, charles.k.scott@ ... wrote:

              >

              > --- You wrote:



              > I went to that website and looked at the plans. It's no wonder

              that canoe demonstrates good primary stability, once you get past the

              bilge curve it is absolutely flat, no curvature whatsoever. Doesn't

              look like there is much in the way of rocker either. I'm not saying

              this is bad, just an observation.

              >

              > Corky Scott

              >

              Yup...flat does mean stability, so does wide. Adding rocker, adds

              maneuverability, important in rivers and rapids; in lakes, not so

              much. Likewise, narrowing beam increases both speed and tenderness

              (tippiness).



              To me wider is better in the way of rambunctious grandkids, ladies of

              my age or so, and a general reluctance to suffer a dipping. The same

              goes for the miscellaneous pets folks take aboard. {I actually saw a

              dogfight on a local lake last weekend between two boats that took

              their big watchdogs along for a ride.}



              One drawback to wider & longer: increased weight, an issue as I have

              gotten older. Also, as I added amenities (airtight compartments,

              softer seats, and the like) I added more weight. Hmmm.



              So, I bought a cheap trailer. Works fine.



              JR Sloan





























              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.