Speaking of stability... I made an observation this week.

While out doing the old re-entry-and-roll drill, I noticed how my new(5
month old) kayak is quite easy to paddle when the cockpit is half-full of
water.

My old kayak, turned into an Olympic K1 stability-wise, when it was
waterlogged, while the new one is only slightly more unstable.

The old kayak has a beam of 52cm and a flat bottom hull, while the new one
is 50cm wide with a very rounded hull.

--
Peter Unold - http://www.unold.dk/paddling

Peter,

I have a kayak book (I think it's Derek Hutchinson's) which states
that there is really no reason to use a narrow kayak for touring. He
implied that the risk of capsize is too great and self rescue
techniques are only reliable in calm protected waters. I think he
defines narrow as less than 23".

The guy on the Caske site says the same thing. Apparently he was
paddling a wide folding boat whereas his partner (who was quite
experienced I gathered) was paddling a performance fiberglass craft
and in rough seas the latter regularly capsized, even to the point of
exhaustion.

On the other hand people regularly take the high performance craft on
expeditions in rough seas. One example is the Nordkapp which in
experienced hands is supposed to be one of the most sea worthy kayaks.
I guess NDK would claim that in rough seas the wider kayak tends to
tilt on the face of a wave whereas the Nordkapp would remain more
upright.

Perhaps it just boils down to experience level. What do you think
about this issue? I did not read the articles/info on your website in
great detail but apparently the speed difference between these boats
is not that great. If this is true, than can narrow kayaks be
considered as seaworthy or even more so than wider kayaks?




"Peter Unold" wrote in message ...
Speaking of stability... I made an observation this week.

While out doing the old re-entry-and-roll drill, I noticed how my new(5
month old) kayak is quite easy to paddle when the cockpit is half-full of
water.

My old kayak, turned into an Olympic K1 stability-wise, when it was
waterlogged, while the new one is only slightly more unstable.

The old kayak has a beam of 52cm and a flat bottom hull, while the new one
is 50cm wide with a very rounded hull.

Alex Horvath wrote in
om:

Peter,

I have a kayak book (I think it's Derek Hutchinson's) which states
that there is really no reason to use a narrow kayak for touring.
He implied that the risk of capsize is too great and self rescue
techniques are only reliable in calm protected waters. I think he
defines narrow as less than 23".

The guy on the Caske site says the same thing. Apparently he was
paddling a wide folding boat whereas his partner (who was quite
experienced I gathered) was paddling a performance fiberglass
craft and in rough seas the latter regularly capsized, even to the
point of exhaustion.

On the other hand people regularly take the high performance craft
on expeditions in rough seas. One example is the Nordkapp which in
experienced hands is supposed to be one of the most sea worthy
kayaks. I guess NDK would claim that in rough seas the wider kayak
tends to tilt on the face of a wave whereas the Nordkapp would
remain more upright.

It is my understanding that a round-bottomed boat will be easier
to hold upright on the side of a wave, while a flat-bottomed boat
will want to conform to the slope of the wave under it. The assumes
that you are broadside to the wave. I don't know that the width of
the boat would have as much to do with it.

Having waves approach from the bow (or stern), I can't see how the
width of the boat would make much difference. I could be wrong
(probably am, in fact). I would suspect that the narrower boat would
be generally less stable than the wider boat -- if everything else
was equal! (Which it never is.)

Perhaps it just boils down to experience level. What do you think
about this issue? I did not read the articles/info on your website
in great detail but apparently the speed difference between these
boats is not that great. If this is true, than can narrow kayaks
be considered as seaworthy or even more so than wider kayaks?


I suspect experience as the deciding factor -- or more precisely,
skill level. I know of some kayakers with several years' experience
who still lack the skill or some other kayakers who have only been
doing it for a year or so. Skill or natural ability, I'm not sure.

--
Darryl

On 23-Jun-2004, (Alex Horvath) wrote:

I have a kayak book (I think it's Derek Hutchinson's) which states
that there is really no reason to use a narrow kayak for touring. He
implied that the risk of capsize is too great and self rescue
techniques are only reliable in calm protected waters. I think he
defines narrow as less than 23".

I know one kayak designer who says that the section in DH's books on
kayak design should be torn out and burned. DH is mostly hot air when
it comes to the physics/hydrodynamic of kayaks.

I can design you a 20" wide kayak that is extremely stable and a 24"
wide kayak that you'd barely be able to paddle for its tippyness.
There's a lot more to stability than maximum beam.

Darryl J.'s comment on how a kayak behaves on a wave is correct. However,
he doesn't go far enough. A wide kayak is harder to keep upright on a
wave that is beam on. If that wave is breaking, the wider and more
"stable" the kayak, the more likely the kayak is to upset.

If you watch paddlers in waves, the ones in the narrow kayaks are better
able to keep their kayaks steady, while the wide kayaks tend to rock
back and forth.

DH likes wide kayaks because he's a wide paddler.

Mike

Hi

On 23 Jun 2004 10:48:21 -0700, (Alex Horvath)
wrote:
[...]
On the other hand people regularly take the high performance craft on
expeditions in rough seas. One example is the Nordkapp which in
experienced hands is supposed to be one of the most sea worthy kayaks.
I guess NDK would claim that in rough seas the wider kayak tends to
tilt on the face of a wave whereas the Nordkapp would remain more
upright.

Even though many people says so, the Nordkapp is not a fast kayak.
The hydrodynamics for the Nordkapp H2O is listed in the latest
Seakayaker.

As for seaworthiness I never understood what that term covers. But I
do know that the NDK Romany is supposed to 'have it'. At least that's
what everybody keep saying. I remain sceptical until someone provides
the hard facts.

Perhaps it just boils down to experience level. What do you think
about this issue? I did not read the articles/info on your website in
great detail but apparently the speed difference between these boats
is not that great. If this is true, than can narrow kayaks be
considered as seaworthy or even more so than wider kayaks?

One month ago I went on a trip with a former german K2 national
champion. I was in the faster, lighter, cooler boat and in pretty good
shape. Still whenever he accelerated it was like I was standing still.
He's twice my age but practices 5-6 times a week in his racing kayak.

One can prove any fact by refering to some expedition(so that's what
I'll do). Nigel Foster and Geoff Hunter went around Iceland in
Foster's Vyneck design. There are few real seakayaks that are less
stable than the Vyneck(Nelo FW 2000 comes to mind).

My main point is: the ability to stay upright and go fast primarily
depends on the paddler.

--
Peter Unold - http://www.unold.dk/paddling

Alex Horvath wrote:
Peter,

I have a kayak book (I think it's Derek Hutchinson's) which states
that there is really no reason to use a narrow kayak for touring. He
implied that the risk of capsize is too great and self rescue
techniques are only reliable in calm protected waters. I think he
defines narrow as less than 23".

I've paddled with Derek and all he did was criticize the low stability
of the boat I was in at the time...a Nordkapp. At the time, the boat did
feel pretty unstable to me. These days, it would feel like a couch. I no
longer own a single boat that's as stable as the Nordkapp was, yet I
find my boats to be more that stable enough to be comfortable.

With all due respect, Derek likes wide, stable boats because that's what
he fits in. It kind of makes one wonder if he ever even paddled his
latest design, the Andromeda. I guess he must have greased his hips and
left the seat out. ;-)

I do agree with him that it's important to be able to relax in the boat
you're paddling (at least for a touring boat), as it's more fun and you
don't waste energy fighting to stay upright. However, that comfort point
varies from person to person and also with time in a given boat. As was
my case with the Nordkapp, what felt positively scary initially
eventually became very comfortable.

The guy on the Caske site says the same thing. Apparently he was
paddling a wide folding boat whereas his partner (who was quite
experienced I gathered) was paddling a performance fiberglass craft
and in rough seas the latter regularly capsized, even to the point of
exhaustion.

That sounds like a matter of paddler skill. "Experienced" doesn't mean
that he could handle the boat he was in, which obviously he couldn't. I
know people who have been paddling for decades and still have very
little paddling skill. This is especially true of those who spent all of
their time in wide, stable boats.

On the other hand people regularly take the high performance craft on
expeditions in rough seas. One example is the Nordkapp which in
experienced hands is supposed to be one of the most sea worthy kayaks.
I guess NDK would claim that in rough seas the wider kayak tends to
tilt on the face of a wave whereas the Nordkapp would remain more
upright.

That's correct. FYI, the Nordkapp is made by VCP, not NDK shudder.

Perhaps it just boils down to experience level.

Actually, it boils down to "skill" level.

What do you think
about this issue? I did not read the articles/info on your website in
great detail but apparently the speed difference between these boats
is not that great. If this is true, than can narrow kayaks be
considered as seaworthy or even more so than wider kayaks?

Absolutely, though that is largely dependent on the person paddling them.