I agree that hydrodynamic drag calcs for a weird boat shape like this will be suspect. I don't particularly believe them for sea kayaks either - well maybe to one significant digit. There is no flow simulation in the calcs, just coefficient massaging - they can't deal with hard/soft chines, boundary layers or any other real flow effects. The only numbers I put much stock in are the tow tank numbers from Sea Kayaker magazine. Even those are for static tows in quiescent water, which is probably too reductive to tell much about how a real sea kayak will behave in daily use in wind, waves, turbulence, etc.
Anyway, my point about width at catch is this: the Little Wing is not a Q700 or a surf ski. It's not even a big sea kayak. It's probably most fair to compare it to another high end rec/crossover boat, as you suggest, for example the Epic GPX.
The GPX is 12'11" with a 25" beam, anywhere from 25 to 37 pounds, $1500-$2500. From what I've read, this boat receives mostly universal praise for what it is meant to be, i.e. dead stable, agreeable to paddle, light weight. I don't hear any complaints about its high ticket price or width at catch, both of which look to be about the same as the LW12.5.
So what's the difference? Well the Little Wing does look dopey, and they are maybe overselling its attributes (what else is new). I think the animus is mostly due to its weird shape - and let's be truthful, almost nobody has paddled one. The Mariner Coaster was also considered an ugly duckling when introduced and is now considered a watershed design. So maybe the piling-on is a little premature - I want to paddle one (or test one) before I judge it.
Little Wings Excellent point Cardelo. Although Warren makes LWs up to 18.5-feet in length, boats that I compare my LW 12.5 in my spreadsheet that I used to select the Lttle Wing are the Necky Manitou, the Epic Rec GP, and the Mariner Coaster, among others. The LW 12.5 is a rec/day touring kayak and should not be compared to a surf ski or an expedition kayak. However, I believe that the width at the catch of my LW is probably less than almost any other boat of similar length, and, at 5’3" tall and with short arms, that was a very important criterion to me. Maybe the poster that said the catch seems wide has long arms and the catch for him would be over the wing (the front wing is 21" at its widest point). I can assure you that the catch for me is at the 20" cockpit width, which seems quite reasonable for a 12.5-foot boat and my preferred high-angle stroke.
Just for the record, there are at least four reasons that I have been posting a lot about the Little Wings.
I got the boat less than one month ago, and the wheather here in IL has been much better for typing than paddling (yes, at this time of year, more key strokes than paddle strokes).
2)There have been no tests of any Little Wing in magazines such as Sea Kayaker, so my test report on paddling.net is about the only semi-comprehensive one availble to most people.
I would like to discuss the Little Wing with other LW owners that have more experience in rougher conditions than what I have encountered so far.
I would like to get someone with greater skills and experience than me interested enough to paddle a Little Wing and do a comprehensive report.
I am not affliated in any way with Warren Light Craft; I have never met Ted or Zac, and have discussed the Little Wings with Matt Broze, of Mariner Coaster fame, about as much as I have with the Warrens. Matt ran some hydrostatic calculations on my boat as best he could given the unusual shape and limited data, and found that while it had more resistence than his Coaster at 3.5 and 4.0 knots, it had less resistence at 5+ knots, which is the pattern that I have observed as I paddled it. Matt was interested in how I liked the LW after paddling it, and I thought I would share my thoughts with others as well.
construction/loads Thin skins over a core can give you a very light, stiff structure that’s great for the distributed loads it sees on the water, but has problems with the point loads it encounters on land. Damage tolerance and structural efficiency can be mutually exclusive.
Aircraft can be the same way – built to withstand tremendous air loads, but they’re very easy to damage on the ground.
Actually I think there is a lot of good in the design - the reason I looked at your review when you posted it as well as trying to research a bit more about this design (most likely would not buy myself due to cost/fragility combination, but nevertheless it is a unique shape and worth a look, IMO).
To answer your question without obsessing about it -;) my point of reference for the catch width is my Perception Sonoma 13.5 It is of very similar proportions to your kayak: 13.5 feet long, probably a little under 13 feet waterline, about 22" at its widest above water point, more like 20" for you at the waterline (close to 21-22" for me as I am heavier), but that width is at the rear of the seat and only gets narrower from there to the front. I'd whish it were 15lb ligher to match the LW but, alas for $2,500 less I'll be happy to carry its 40lb on my shoulder -;)
You make a good assumption - at 6'4" I do have long hands and would likely be hitting the front wings with my paddle, where it would be probably 21" wide. The same area on the Sonoma for me is b/w 16 and 17" wide but on a "fish form" kayak it comes to about 18-20 on most 20-22" boats I've tried.
Coaster is purty! Any “ugly duckling” qualities with the coaster was due to function over style (and so I find them fairly attractive actually). Any that don’t like the aesthetics are likely biased by PNW/Brit design entrenchment (and associated features many attribute performance to - and assume kayaks looking otherwise lack [much like pointless Brit vs QCC/Epic/etc. now]).
Benefits of the hull shape/design thinking/intent of the Mariner designs are evident even in photos. Claims were based on specific design intent, and verified in sea use it was designed for, nor marketing/sales based hyperbole backed up over 3 pond paddles…
Compare some Mariner marketing text:
(Coaster) “Hull Configuration and Features:
Swedeform–widest aft of center the opposite of Fish-form (for less wave-making resistance due to the finer angle of entry)
Shallow V-midsection with flared sides (for a narrower waterline and high secondary stability)
V’ed forebody (soft ride) develops into hard chines (resists broaching)
Little rocker at stern, substantial at bow (for tracking and maneuverability)
Extreme flare and reserve buoyancy at bow (resists pearling in surf)
Hard chine center and aft sections (carves turns and holds an edge in breakers)
Strong V-keel in stern quarter (resists broaching)
Higher forebody (for more foot room–to size 12–and a dry cockpit)
Built in knee braces (for security and control)
Balanced wind/water couple at cruising speed (doesn’t weathercock)” - from Mariner website
See much hype there?
To be fair, the text on the “features” page of the Warren site is actually pretty reasonable too for marketing text. To their credit, they mainly talk about weight and weight related qualities, some construction details (even mentions the potential for dents), and some minimal and somewhat generic stuff about stability. Everyone claims speed/efficiency.
I suspect the Warrens know their market well enough and their message hits that target pretty squarely (as the happy customer here makes painfully clear). The lack of a lot of nautical/design/engineering jargon is telling, and smart. So, more points to them for that too. It’s ultimately the hardest part of the business.
Now, if they could only find a way to photograph them so they don’t look like giant clown shoes with 70’s era Detroit paint jobs! On a similar note, aircraft references/styling have always been used to impart some higher performance impressions to other things - and the “wings” gimmick reminds me of 50’s era marketing ploy of using “jet age” fins on cars (bet folks argued those made cars more stable too).
I also can’t help seeing a bit of the same reasoning behind selling “teen” products to younger kids, “young adult” products to teens, etc. Anyone in those markets knows you can’t sell “teen” products to teens (maybe to their parents, not to them). I suppose a portion of Rec market doesn’t want to feel they’re buying rec boats, and likes to feel they’re at a bit higher performance level.
On that score, no harm no foul. The weird win/win I mentioned earlier.
We all “buy the dream” to some extent (buying motivated by much more than functional/rational factors), and [while I’m making friends by not sugar coating my opinions in proper PC fashion] a large portion of “Sea Kayak” buyers are far worse in that regard! Certainly not immune myself…
BTW - Is it just me or are the rest viewing this thread seeing a lot more Warren Light Craft adds coming up… Creepy. Is Brent is using keyword/relevance tools to target the ads?
I just got a new job in Gloucester Mass, and moved to Beverly Mass…one town north of Salem where these things are made…
I am not certain what readers here would consider me level wise…but i have a history of enjoying 4-5’ seas off of Sakonnet Point in Tiverton RI…tidal rips coming into Narragansett Bay…and kayak surfing for hours on end…I teach for two kayak schools…have had more boats in my house than girlfriends…
and…i hope to test one out…let ya know what i feel from it…
You sound like just the person to really test paddle a Little Wing and file a credible report back to the group on this forum.
I agree with Greyak that the type of information on Warren’s web site seems geared a little toward the more casual recreational paddler compared to the the detailed information on boat features, boat design and hydrostatics on the Mariner web site and many other manufacturer’s sites. They do not seem to know how to market their kayaks to the sea kayaking community. As a result, I believe that they end up selling many of their boats to relatively inexperienced paddlers - certainly to paddlers who are not ‘plugged in’ to the sea kayaking community. I also believe that their Little Wings are very ‘seaworthy’ and capable of handling much rougher water conditions than most of their owners, including me so far, have used them.
By the way, their shop is located right on Salem harbor and they welcome anyone to come test paddle any time. If you are of average size, I would think that you would want to test paddle the LW 15.5 - their newest model that incorporates some features of my LW 12.5.
I will have my LW 12.5 at the Inland Sea Kayak Symposium in Washburn, WI this June; anyone who fits in the boat is welcome to a test paddle. I may get out to the WCSKS in Port Townsend again this September.
Bill G. Thoughts on Paddling the LW First, I was being a bit of a devil’s advocate on my technology comment above. I have worked real hard the last year on developing my skills. Seriously. I am fortunate to have some good people/instructors who mentor me.
I paddled the Little Wing 14 and 18 at the ECCKF last year. I swapped back and forth between them and the Epics (16 and 18) several times. My g/f has an Epic that I have paddled about 20 miles maybe. (I love Epics).
First, conditions were real calm last year at the ECCKF. Well, a little bit of wind one day, when I did notice a bit of weathercocking with the LW18. I was not using the old school rudder. I don’t do rudders. Rudders are no substitue for skills (Greyak!).
I felt the LW was a little bit faster than the Epics but my g/f felt the opposite. So they were probably equal. This year, I think I will bring my GPS along to gather some data. I spun both LW’s around in tight circles pretty easy (using alternating sweep strokes). I was surprised the 18 turned so tight, so quickly.
As far as handing, I truly didn’t notice the sponsons (sp.) while I was paddling but I did observe that they were creating some resistance with the water (little waves). I’m pretty light (165lbs) so I was surpised. I also noticed a couple of instructors talking to each other with the LW’s (14 and 18) just sitting there edged all the way over.
Honestly the lake/pond at the ECCKF is not a great testing place (no waves, no following seas). But this year I have skills I didn’t have last year (edging for one) that should make for a better evaluation.
Keep in mind I paddle a WS Tempest 170 poly with more crevaces than Everest. So any light boat will have great acceleration compared to my Tempest.
Summary: The Little Wing actually felt quite “normal” in terms of turning and stability and generaly paddling. A quite quick normal.
The way I look at it, the design might be giving us something (increased stability in rough water and increased stability for self-rescues) without having to give something up (accleration, speed, turning ability/agility). It is very possible.
I am suprised the kayak community is so resistent to a “different” idea. Ok, a very expensive different idea. Blame it on the military who is gobbling up all the carbon fiber.
Now if we can figure out how to split the C and the O2 from atmospheric CO2 cheaply, we could all be paddling cheap carbon fiber kayaks! Think of all the dimples!
Even WS might figure out how to make a 35 pound Tempest 170!
Good to see your perceptive and intelligent review. You said, “The way I look at it, the design might be giving us something (increased stability in rough water and increased stability for self-rescues) without having to give something up (accleration, speed, turning ability/agility). It is very possible.”
My thoughts exactly, stated more concisely. As I pointed out previously, the LW 12.5 seems to be the perfect boat for me, but not necessarily everyone, certainly not for someone 6’4" tall with a reach two feet longer than mine. But, it seems to have the rock-solid stability of my Necky Gannet, the speed of my 16.5-foot Cooper and the weight of a feather. This combination takes care of my needs on inland lakes and gets me on the water more often (which is the whole point of owning a kaykak), and provides some margin of safety if, by chance, I encounter rougher water than I should be in given my skill level. By the way, I have practiced several self-rescues with the LW 12.5, and they are very quick and easy due to the boat’s watertight hatches and bulkheads and great reserve buoyancy.
I forgot that I own an example of a denting laminate with a foam core. My slalom c-1 boat has a deck that is a stiff foam laminated between thin layers of glass and Kevlar. Very stiff and light, but the deck does dimple or dent from relatively light blows. Certainly not strong enough for a whitewater hull.
The point is not that … … “They do not seem to know how to market their kayaks to the sea kayaking community” as you say, but rather they seem to know (or have learned) that the sea kayaking segment is more than a bit of a dead end for them. It is not where their sales will be generated.
Their approach to target beginner/intermediate/more rec oriented paddlers is spot on. If they have ANYTHING right, it is this. By targeting more rec oriented paddlers, their offerings are truly going to be a step up for those paddlers. Win-win.
They should avoid marketing to “sea kayak” community entirely IMO. Any who considers themselves in that segment are unlikely customers for these kayaks (regardless of length), and the few that might overlap/see these as options won’t need them to be marketed that way. 90% of “sea kayakers” will not take the designs seriously enough to look at them beyond curiosity/entertainment value (and frankly, they don’t need to. Plenty of other great performing, decent weight, no gimmick, non denting, better looking choices are available). Remaining 10% with more open minds (from your perspective anyway - others might say less discerning) still are very unlikely to buy one for all sorts of reasons. Some over purely functional issues like myself, others due to aesthetics, others to group affiliations, etc… Most a mix of all that.
#1 bitch I have with the design (that I think would apply to all “sea kayakers” as well): With the wings, you can’t effectively shorten the waterline length by leaning and edging. Wings directly interfere with the ability to edge/lean and have the opposite effect. This type of control is very helpful for decent maneuverability on flat and textured water, as well as being critical for boat control in textured water. In other words, the wings get in the way of what makes a kayak a kayak. Having the widest part at one point instead of two allows all this, and can still provide ample and more controllable secondary stability.
#2 bitch: Wings are a gimmick that sells to those afraid of capsize. Having that fear, even if just in the back of your mind, is a horrible way to spend your time on the water. These designs encourage people to stay at that level (while robbing you of performance attributes a more conventional design offers), and preys on their fears to generate sales.
A few here will know what I mean when I say it brings to mind a “Kayak by Timmy” as it’s that approach to “safety” in candy apple carbon!
In all, a poor performance tradeoff, and a sad marketing ploy. All my points given them in other posts stand (narrower than rec beams, interesting build, lightness, etc), but are all irrelevant to be because of these two things.
Of course, as said all along, it mostly doesn’t matter. Majority of paddlers are probably only doing slow flat turns and nearly flat water anyway, and will take their chances trying to avoid capsizing vs learning to be able to recover (and thereby automatically having a level of control that can really prevent).
So, I’d say they know and target their market very well indeed…
Little waves? On the pond at ECK&K fest? I was there whole event last year. Must have missed them! L
If that tiny pond chop is affecting the wings, you’re not making the best case for them.
Any “resistance” from me at least isn’t about them being “different”. You should see the “different” looking paddles I use! Different is often interesting, but not automatically good or bad. In the case of the wings, I think it’s a sales gimmick.
I can’t speak for others, but my “resistance” is about the specific way in which they are different, and how that impacts their use - and users. See other post…
You could take the same design, and blend that same wing volume back into a less “different” shape and get even BETTER performance/handling on multiple levels. Of course, that functionally better kayak wouldn’t have the marketing angle and would be lost in a sea of very good competition…
I’m sure they do feel pretty “normal”, and do turn OK (flat turns, as edging would be somewhat counterproductive), on a small pond. Again, hardly a selling point. Same goes for just about anything else even remotely similar. I suspect they’ll work just fine for most paddlers - but with the performance drawbacks I get into in the other post.
All academic anyway. As long as buyer(s?) are happy, who cares?
Be sure to paddle the Little Wings Greyak. Be sure to paddle the Little Wings at the EKC&K if you attend this year; this is about the only symposium that the Warrens attend as far as I know.
However, it is one symposium that I will probably never attend as the only places I ever get to paddle in Central IL are inland lakes, so why go to a dea kayak symposium on a pond? When I go to a symposium, I look for bigger water in which to practice my seldon-used and rusty paddling skills.
Greyak, I missed your other post I agree with both of your ‘bitches’ about the Little Wings and tend to agree with your contention that maybe they should not be marketed to the sea “kayaking” community. While my LW is not difficult to put on edge, I didn’t find that it aids turning very much, if at all. On the other hand, unlike my Cooper (which will not turn without edging), the LW does not need to be edged in order to turn quite quickly, which could allow an inexperienced paddler to avoid an obstacle or quickly turn into a wave or large pwerboat wake. The handling of a LW, like its overall shape, is just different than traditional sea kayaks. I do agree that the earlier model LWs were not pleasing in their proportions, and probably did not paddle as well as my LW 12.5, or, I would imagine, their new 15.5.
However, my admittedly limited testing does confirm to me that the claims that the Warren’s make that Little Wings are both relatively ‘fast’ for their length and at the same time very stable are valid. As you say, these attributes appeal to a lot of paddlers, but probably not dedicated sea kayakers. I can enjoy both types of handling. One of my favorite boats as far as overall handling is the CD Suka. I tested both it and the Willow on the same day and found the Willow sort of barge-like compared to the very sporty-handling Suka.
How about a genuine rigorous double blind controlled scientific experimental design study. In other words, scientists who have
no knowledge of kayaks are brought in and measure the speed
efficiency directional control, stability, and tracking in various
conditions.
Then all our bias opinion, and prejudices (pre-judging) are laid
bare and we can actually know is this the real deal or Piltdown Man ( a hoax). If real and good, yeah! If not, OK.
Since we have all spent money and invested time and effort with all
these boats we all have a huge motivation to view this boat through
lenses of various colors.
Test in Lake Superior After paddling my Little Wing for four months, I continue to be impressed with its performance. I participated in the Inland Sea Kayak Symposium last weekend in Washburn, WI on Lake Superior. Nigel Dennis led an ‘advanced paddler’ tour (I did not participate in this), and, in general, this was a very serious group of sea kayakers. By far the most common kayaks paddled were NDK Romanys and Explorers as well as other Brit boats such as P & H and Valley. My Little Wing drew a fair amount of interest and many questions from fellow paddlers. However, mostly they were somewhat amused by the design; they live in a Brit boat world and don’t plan to change. They were very impressed with the weight and the finish of the boat. Once the organizers saw my boat, they approved it for the tours. Previously, that had told me that only boats over 15-feet long could participate.
Many of these paddlers in their 17-foot kayaks were probably somewhat less amused by the Little Wing during the 6-8 mile tour of the mainland sea caves in the Apostle Island National Lakeshore. First, we had to carry our boats down 44-steps from the parking lot to the beach launch site. The Little Wing’s 24-Lbs weight made it much easier to portage. On the way out to the caves, we encountered 2-ft plus beam and following seas (which I had never even seen before on any water body, much less paddled; most of the other paddlers encountered conditions like these quite frequently in their paddles on the Great Lakes). The Little Wing handled these very well and was among the ‘faster’ boats. The two guides/instructors split us into two groups for a more direct trip back through a 10-15-knot headwind and 2-foot waves. Surprisingly, I (and my Little Wing) was included in the faster group of paddlers, and the Little Wing was not the last craft to reach the put-in beach. Needless to say, the LW was easier than the longer boats to maneuver in the sea caves and surrounding rocks.
