First SOF? Just split the difference.

Do what looks right to you. The rest of the things you need to figure out (for a more non-traditional/keelson up custom) are a lot more important.

One more thing to consider here though, pointer ends are easier to stretch and sew skin over (and not have any other than the one deck seam, nothing on along stem or stern that messes up the cutwater/extends below waterline).

darn it all
You mean to say my kayak is not well-suited for hunting caribou? Now you tell me.

Flare
If you want flare in the sides an overhang seems to be a natural consequence on a skin on frame kayak. The bifid bow on a baidarka may be a way to achieve flare without an overhang.

Thank you both! (n/m)
no message

faster till that plumb bow hangs up with
near anything floating on the surface! Nothing P.O.'s me more than having to stop and back up to rid debris (leaves, seaweed, etc) after failing at ‘bouncing’ the bow of my Wenonah ‘Javelin’ outrigger to rid the hitchhikers! Doesn’t take much debris to noticeably slow my forward motion, or make a racket! Doesn’t really happen all that often, but it is a pisser when it does happen. Have a bud who paddles marathon/sprint boats who has the same complaint about his plumb bows. They are fast though!

Not only rides up on ice…
… but also on those pesky mangrove roots and most don’t have rudders to tangle. However those high pointy bows do catch the low branches.

Blame flat debris filled water…
…not the bow rake. With even very small waves, wakes and chop it becomes a non issue. More plumb can actually clear easier then.



Leaves on flat water seem to be the things that cling, and more raked bow kayaks I’ve owned (SOF, Sparrow Hawk, Pintail, Shearwater…) have picked up leaves just as much or more than my QCC (I suspect due to sharper leading edges and flatter surfaces) and had to bounce them once in a while too.

Does it matter?

I have no background to get into this kind of discussion, probably would need some boat design experience, but am curious as to why you are asking. The bow and stern overhang, or lack thereof, are usually attached to a hull that could have a variety of other characteristics inbetween. So for a given boat and its overhang, functionality would be be about a lot more like rocker, hull stability profile, fit, speed, features etc. The overhang would probably end up being something that was subservient to the rest of it in choosing a kayak.

So I am curious as to why this part of the boat is the focus.

Better response on another BBS?
The blue herons KayakFoundry forum might be a better source:

http://www.blueheronkayaks.com/phpBB2/index.php



That or the Kayak Building Bulletin Board:

http://www.kayakforum.com/



Simply because those sites are geared more towards self-built boats.

Just curious …
Probably not the most important part of the boat, you are right.

Winters

Greyak said "Want science? Read Winters, etc. Not Pnet."

Best advice I have ever read on Pnet. Maybe the only good advice? :-)

Not unimportant!
I believe from experience that an overhanging bow and stern are very useful in surf and following seas. If the ends are not raised and curved upwards the kayak may tend to pearl in those conditions causing broaching or worse. (pitch pole).

SOF … A little bit of everything Kocho.
http://www.capefalconkayak.com/kayak%20and%20paddle%20designs.html

a more specific question:
Has anyone paddled anything like a Loki (plumb bow) in steep following seas or surf? If so, can you verify whether the design might have it’s drawbacks in this case?

it’s what’s under the hull
that matters NOT the overhang in a broach. rocker keeps you from broaching NOT overhang.



You can have a straight keelson w/no rocker and a ton of overhang and she’ll broach like a beach. You can have a rockered boat with NO overhang that will do cutbacks w/o a hint o’ broach.



steve

That’s more a matter of bow volume…

... and distribution (and rocker as Steve says, and wave characteristics, and...).

Kayaks like QCC/EPIC have fuller ends/more more volume in the ends and so offer more resistance to pearling.

Narrower/pointer ends of more pinched gunnel designs have less volume and dig in easier and deeper (why you never see that sort of long narrow LV bow on a surf ski (except maybe the old VentureSport "Needle", which was an extreme flatwater design).

Looking at the long overhang (on similar overall length sea kayaks) as providing more volume/lift/resistance to pearling in not really looking!

Flare? All can have flare to some degree. How that flare responds to pearling, and how it impacts other performance aspects, is dependent on the overall shape/volume/buoyancy.

Consider the cross section shapes/areas up there. The more fuller and plumb designs tend to have convex shapes through the bow, while many of the pointier lower volume types have have concavity. Effects on performance of this concavity is complex (though curling bow wakes, grabbiness of the ends, and reduced forward efficiency are not uncommon - though these can be from/compounded by several other factors).

Not all that dramatic of a thing most of the time. Mostly differences in general feel/personality, but definite differences are there that matter more in those less common times. There are times and places where each has some preferable qualities.

Common wisdom sort of says that having the volume more centered and the ends finer can be nicer for hanging out in tide races and slop (shorter kayak disguised as a longer one?). Having the volume distributed out a bit into fuller ends can be nicer for getting through such areas. This of course assumes similar LWL on other factors, so is pure fantasy.

In reality one type typically has a much shorter effective waterline. While comparable in overall dimensions, a QCC700 probably has a foot and half more LWL than say a Nordkapp H2O (of nearly same overall spec). That alone changes all sorts of things.

As has been said repeatedly. the other factors are where most of the story is written.

Have a look at the newer "play" oriented Whiskey 16 with no pinch, more end volume, less overhang (guess the Mariner bros knew what they were doing after all). Also consider sea kayaks like the Aquanaut that are somewhere in between something like a Nordkapp and a QCC, and makes good use of both approaches by not seeing them as separate/not having some limited one vs the other mentality, and just setting out to design a good kayak by making the trade offs that will result in it doing what it's designer intended.

Think, don't drink (the cool aid), on this stuff. Lots of ways to paddle the waves.

It ain’t the bow rake as much as…
… everything else! Such a simple concept, so hard to get across…



Sort of like asking if someone with a long or short nose would be a better swimmer (without regard to their other attributes, the venue, etc.)!!!

plumb bow
Virtually every surf ski has a plumb bow and they are designed just for very rough water, and do just fine.



It matters what the shape of the hull is not the shape of the bow.



Bill H.

the most important part of a kayak
is whats sitting in it. I prefer a plumb bow, I do not like all the wasted space overhanging water that does not make me go faster, and doesn’t offer any storage space. I don’t really think there is too much design advantage to upswept ends other than maybe sliding off logs, roots, etc. Just build it however you like. Or…build one of each and then you tell us which is better. Would be an interesting experiment.

Happy building

Thanks - seen that; good stuff!
Some interesting kayaks and thoughts there…