Could your negativity toward the USCA have to do with the fact that you with a less than tactful approach on their message board wanted them to contact you so that you could provide the USCA with the holy grail of boat classifications (based on your opinion),, The Sound Rowers Classification,, and were ignored,, mostly because of the God like approach? Being involved with the USCA I have not heard any mention to the fact that manufacturers with runs of less than 200 boats be denied,, what I have heard is completely opposite of that. Any type of rules or boat classifications system will have those come afterward and design around it,,such as Guillemot with the Mystery (the 20 ft. boat you mention) and Canunuts that you designed with John Winters(not to take anything away from Canunut,, he would of won that race in a bathtub),, if the USCA had this devious plot as you insinuate to only allow certain boats or manufacturers they would not have allowed your co-designed boat,, and if I remember correctly that boat has raced at Nationals for 2 or 3 years. Another error in your post is that the race has been held in the boonies of PA the last two years,,go on the USCA site and see that it was held in PA 3 years ago, held in a different venue(Michigan) after that and returned to PA this year to be follwed by Wisconsin for 06. I'm sure you have a vast knowledge of hydrodynamics, much more than I,, but that is not the only thing needed in situations such as this. Notice that at no point have I advocated for or against any system or classification,just wanted to add some additional facts that you decided to just so slightly misrepresent or leave out on your post.
(sailing)… not everyone can win all the time. The idea was to find the best sailor not the fastest boat. That is why many races are for only one model boat. What they would do is if you had five identical boats they would give you your own class. No regard to gender or age, just who’s the fastest in that boat.
So if you think you are the fastest paddler just buy or build the fastest boat in your class and you will win
Epic vs. QCC700 and Sound Rower specs Intersting to see that other organizations are having similar issues with respect to Sea Kayak specs. The Yukon River Quest race has been going through similar discusions and have adopted the Soundrowers organizations specs as follows:
b. Sea Kayak Specifications
This race is for recreation or expedition-style sea kayaks only, with closed cockpits. Sit-on-tops or an outrigger-type craft are not allowed. Sea kayaks must have storage hatches capable of storing all the gear required for this race. Kayaks must be paddled with the use of double-bladed paddles only.
The Yukon River Quest has adopted the Sound Rowers length-width ratio for determining the suitability of sea kayaks for this race. The simple length to width ratio is determined by dividing the total length of the kayak at the 4-inch waterline (not including rudder) by the midship width at the 4-inch waterline. A complete breakdown of l-w ratios of most kayak brands can be found at www.soundrowers.org. If your kayak is not on the SR list or on the list of acceptable sea kayaks below, please contact the YRMPA giving the model’s length-width specifications or a manufacturer’s website, to ensure your kayak will be allowed entry.
Tandem Sea Kayak
Maximum length-width ratio: 10.4
Kayaks that meet this specification include but are not limited to:
Willderness Systems - Pamilco 160
Lettman - Explorer Expedition
Current Design - Libra TX
Chesapeake Double
Necky – Aramuk, Nootka, Nootka Outfitter
Seaward – Southwind, Passat & Passat G3
Solo Sea Kayak
Maximum length-width ratio: 10.6
Kayaks that meet this specification include but are not limited to:
Epic- Touring Endurance 18’
Necky – Looksha IV, Looksha II, Tahsis, Chatham 18’, Elaho HV 17
Seaward – Quest, Quest X3, Chilco
Current Design – Solstice GTS, Extreme, Expedition, Stratus 18
Simon River – Dart X
Whilst not perfect the specs attempt to try to put some measure of balance and fairness into the class. For this race though the bigger issue is not about top end speed as it is a 460 mile long race over 50 to 70 virtually non stop hours for most paddlers, the advantage of an Epic or QCC 700 may lay in the benefit of having a lighter and more efficient boat to paddle.
That half-inch less beam on the QCC makes all the difference in the calculation. The Epic squeaks in, the QCC does not.
I suppose this might be considered a miscalculation on the QCC designer's part, though I'm not sure he was thinking he was designing a racing boat in the first place.
I believe the rules where changed after the QCC700 design,, prior to Epics,, gave Epic the ability to adjust the overall beam without a significant adjustment at waterline,, where it means something. Not that the folks at QCC had any idea the boat would be used for racing either,, primarily designed as a Tourer that just happens to race,, as has been said here before.
"""So if you think you are the fastest paddler just buy or build the fastest boat in your class and you will win
every time...""""
I see plenty of guys that think this and always have the fastest boat. Yet they still lose because they can't paddle it, especially in the unlimited or ICF class when balance skill becomes an issue. These folks are often good sources of used fast boats because they change boats frequently while trying to find the one that will make the difference though what they really need is seat time and fitness.
It is true given equal paddlers the small differences in boats makes the difference. However, in the USCA races for which I've seen results paddler ability varies so widely that boat specs are pretty minor in determining results.
Overall vs. Waterline Beam At waterline - both would be in the same class. Both meet this part of the spec - and it should be left at that. The EPIC might even be narrower there.
It’s the overall dimensions which DO NOT affect performance that unfairly eliminate the QCC - and more specifically the 10% ratio rule. The EPIC “cheats” this by adding 1/2 of flare behind the paddler - and above the waterline - ala K1 designs. This is intentional. No slight against EPIC for designing to meet the spec. I only complain about the bogus 10% rule part of the spec - not the boats.
Note that many other sea kayaks clearly slower than the EPIC, and much more representative of a “Sea Kayak” also do not meet the 10% overall spec. VCP Nordkapp, NF Legend, Eddyline Falcon 18, etc… Anything with a 21" overall beam that’s longer than 17’6". Obviously, overall length to beam ration is not a fair gauge. The rest of the spec is OK.
Any class spec that does not at least put the EPIC, QCC 700, Seda Glider, CD Stratus and Extreme all in the same class, and the EFT in a separate class, is a poor spec IMO (apologies to B&B, but they’ll understand. Their spec is pretty good and fine for the intent of that race. As they say “It’s not the Olympics”).
Waterline measures - even somewhat arbitrary 4" simulated waterline measures - are much better indicators of performance. This is not rocket science. I’ll give Sound Rowers some credit for using waterline ratios - but won’t go so far as to say they are the ultimate spec either.
Envyabull’s long running battle and USCA politics aside - the 10% overall ration rule is clearly BS. It was briefly eliminated in the 2003 spec - but certain members for rather questionable reasons apparently complained and got that part of the old spec reinstated, thus destroying a rule change that was promising otherwise.
Maybe they should stick to racing K1s and developing Olympic competition paddlers. All this rule silliness does nothing to promote recreational or sea kayak paddling or support the majority of paddler/recreational racer.
I have no problem with someone trying to design to whatever spec. The Winters and Scade spec optimized designs are both great. I’d be proud to be beaten by either. I’ve seen the Winters boat (berifly as it pulled away - and later after the race) and you can easily see how it differs and why it’s faster than a 700. Cool boat - but don’t want one. I don’t race much - and not in USCA - so it doesn’t meet my needs.
I’m building a SOF that is most definitely NOT designed to meet anyone’s spec but my own. Dimensionally it will likely be unlimted class in just about everyone’s specs - but almost certainly not fast enough to belong there with flexible frame, soft sides and hard chines. If I ever race it - and they put me in unlimited - so be it. I have no problem being an oddity in a one-off. Doesn’t soften my stance regarding Q700 and the other production sea kayaks not fitting in the USCA “sea kayak” spec though. That’s just plain irrational.
Yes, I am a paddler scorned I am not a member of the USCA. My membership fee would be a vote of confidence for that organization. I know I would be more effective working from the inside, but it is well beyond that now. Dont you think? So I will play the Ralph Nader role. Everybody loves him, right?
Your comments were an attempt to discredit me. That is fair. I should be open to criticism if I am gonna be critical of a National Organization. Just know, I only want the best for our sport. The USCA will claim the same. If they just did their one race per year I would not care. But, as long as they are trying to spread their influence, they should be open to criticism.
No doubt, I am less than satisfied with the USCA’s kayak classes. You do not need to be an expert to know they are unfair. Many of you recognize the issue and have commented on it here. I stick my neck out by saying so. But any bitternes that comes across is not just from recent events.
I have followed the USCA’s “progress” for about five years. Its not just me. There are others who have tried to offer the USCA technical support. The USCA chose to define their kayak classes with little regard for hydrodynamics. This is very frustrating for those of us who are technical people and want the best for our sport.
Long story short - a few years back I submited a completed Kayak Class Standrads proposal to the USCA forum. I was told they were not looking for a solution, just an open discussion. The president asked me to work directly with the kayak committee and I did. Ultimately the USCA ignored science and did their own thing. I still held some hope for them.
So recently, out of respect for the USCA officers I invited interested members to email me if they wanted to see a copy of an improved proposed kayak standard. I know this may have come across as “God-like”, but my intentions were good. How does one discuss technical issues that many people do not understand without coming acros as a “know-it-all?” How does one describe the USCA’s short history with kayaks by being less than tactful?
I will hold myself to the same level of scrutiny as the USCA. I will email a copy of my current Kayak Class Standards to anybody who would like to review it. All comments appreciated. Shoot holes through it. Tell me where it may be flawed. Post it here (unedited) with critical remarks. That would be great! Send me an email and I will send you a Word file. Just don’t describe me as a “God-like” or any other phrases that may include the word God (LOL).
I did not mention Steve in my last message because he is a modest guy and it was not relevant to that discussion. But since you brought it up…Steve Roseneau (canunut) is a great paddler and I am proud to have him paddling my boat. He is not only very fit, but also a very smart paddler. He offered comments during the design phase. He built two woodstrip prototypes. He has done side-by-side testing against other models. His data confirms the computer programs and my in water testing. I can’t think of anything more satisfying than winning races in a kayak built with your own hands. It drives him crazy that I am not working harder to put the boat into production. By the way, it would be better for my boat if the USCA rules stayed as they are. I have no $$ agenda.
Someone in the last couple months posted this suggestion to the USCA message board. They recommended that only kayaks with productions runs greater than 200 units be allowed to race. Similar proposals have been suggested there other times too. I am not making this up. Of course this would outlaw many current designs and all future designs. I’ve had major manufacturers suggest this to me too, but I understand their motives. I hope this suggestion is ignored as much as mine were. But, don’t be surprised if it happens.
I know you had other criticisms of me, but I can’t remember. Oh yeah, my bad, I was wrong by saying the last 2 USCA National were held in boonies of PA consecutively. It was the last 2 of 3. I guess I am not a know-it-all. (Said with a healthy dose of sarcasm and a wink and a smile) Thats one of my problems. Tone of voice is rarely conveyed with email.
I tried to help the USCA early on. I’ve tried to help since. Others have tried and given up. Others, wisely, keep out of the disussion. I take my breaks until some injustice fires me up enough to continue to speak out. I know this makes me unpopular with some. My method may be flawed, but my intentions are good and my motives sincere.
Hmm All this is coming as news to me, as every race I’ve entered this year saw the QCCs and Epics in the same class, usually Touring, by virtue of using a wing paddle alone, otherwise they group them in sea kayak. I’ve not run in a race where the Epics run sea kayak and the QCCs are bumped up; must just be the ones that exist in my area-didn’t do the Nats this year. Most of the time the EFTs have run with Q-Tips and Epics in Touring-not sure how I feel about this, as they are noticeably faster than either, but also get trounced in the Unlimited class running against their bigger sibling, the T-Bolt, skis, etc. Depending on conditions, here too, boats like Nelo’s Razor can squeak in, as can the new Valley Rapier 18.
unlimited class All of this back and forth is why unlimited class is far and away the fairest category. All the boats are fast as heck, they usually have almost exactly the same dimensions (21 x 17-18), the slightly faster ones are usually tippier which balances things out, and it all ultimately comes down to the paddler. I get really tired of people trying to squeak their boat into a lower category, with the idea that they will have some advantage. Even if you manage to, does this make you feel better?
Competitive vs. casual racers Definitely agree, and think anyone really into racing will naturally migrate toward unlimited kayaks and surf skis (you, Hex, Ice, etc.)
Still, there are a lot of paddlers who enjoy a race now and then in whatever boat they happen to have and use mostly for non-racing enjoyment.
Some of these are of course paddling sea kayaks. This is why I chime in on the “sea kayak” class issue. I see it as mostly being racing for non-racers, or racers who catch the race bug there and then work up to higher classes.
The trend in sea kayaks has shifted toward more efficient “modern” designs and this naturally impacts the fairness of race class specs, which need to be reviewed/revised regularly (with regard to performance, not politics or commercial interests) to keep kayaks with similar performance potential together.
Designing new kayaks - that are primarily sea/tour boats - to meet an old/odd spec would be really retarded - unless the ONLY intended use of that kayak is to paddle in USCA races (Like Envyabull’s Winter’s designed stripper built and paddled by Canunut). But if that’s really your thing, why NOT just move up to unlimited?
I agree with you. Even the races that I have not entered because of the great distance from home have the Epics and QCC’s in the same class, and the EFT’s and the yaks that are over eighteen feet in the racing class.
The rules normally don’t even mention “Water Line”. They state that the the “touring” or “sea kayak” division boats will be eighteen feet and under with at least one water tight compartment with a hatch.
They then break the classes down farther by “composite” and “plastic” and many of them have a rec division for boats fourteen feet and under.
I have a feeling that someone is talking about an isolated race and not the majority of them.
No attempt to discredit, Just trying to correct some of what was said and provide a bit of history to your original post. Again, as you saw, I advocated no system or classifications system and I realize that ALL systems will have its loopholes that some will take advantage of. The method or approach used could of been more subtle. The wording of the post made it DOA, didn’t think many looked at the substance of the message trying to be conveyed after that (my opinion due to how the discussion on the USCA message board ground to a screeching halt upon seeing your post).
