Help with trip to Montana!!


– Last Updated: May-20-14 9:20 AM EST –

Your counter discussiosn begin on a false data points then proceed.

The rig I recommend is field tested here for more than 30 years. 1/4" shafts are OK but don't sue me on that I rec 3/8th's caws you may buy junk. Eyebolts used here are yacht or commercial marine.

I have rank in Volvo mileage and ownership. My 544 since 1969. The hauler is now a 5.4 E250 with sport suspension, full roof rack with airfoils on all sides except rear giving a tunnel effect. Holds a Solstice Titan and Rendezvous coast to coast, Friday Harbor to GNP to Baja/Yuma.

and you ?

The airflow over windshield. Is the open hull an airplane wing shape or a parachute shape ?

The rear flow. A boat tail rear, once fashionable and on the 544 was replaced by Dr. Kamm's tail now modified, reshaped from windtunnel and market testing. A boat tail is a drag.

What you're watching is a large on water...circling the roof mounted canoe drag adding to stock rear end drag. Look this up in Google Images.

The eddy 'sticks' to vehicle's rear body work forcing more energy for forward propulsion.

I assume the fresh synth adds a chemical component, possibly extra polymer chain ends...picture a worm with fingers either end...with the new the used oil receives more further link the slipperiness of long chain polymers.

The 5.4 Ford SOHC uses 5-20 synth. What happens is the extra light weight of synth oil..and at 20W...allows flow past the rings for ongoing lube. And an SU equipped B18 Volvo. The 5.4 has a quart extra capacity. Fill new less than max then add oz each morning.

That's tops for a Caravan on the Interstate hauling GNW.

no paddle floats?
Wha’ happened…are they suddenly on back order?

Holy Crap!
Who knew a Dodge Caravan could evoke such emotion LOL. This really seems to me like a tempest in a teapot. Why can’t he just run a cam strap around each cross bar and over the canoe and run bow and stern lines like a good scout? If memory serves his only real question was where would be best to attach the bow and stern lines. Am I missing something?

thwarts to bars, then find where the
bumpers attach, down from boat to wind around one end then back up to boat…then down to other end of bumper…wind around and back up to boat & trucker-hitch it off. If needed tie in a trucker’s hitch connecting both lines…down near to hood but not blocking driver’s vision.


One more try

– Last Updated: May-28-14 9:57 PM EST –

I didn't respond earlier because I got super busy at work, and then still made time for a three-day paddling trip, which of course made the work situation even more crazy. At this moment I need a break from labwork and report writing.

You started your argument by telling us how good your tie-down methods are and how long they've been working for you, and then asking me whether my own methods are similarly good and time-tested. This tells me that you either can't comprehend what I wrote or chose not to read it at all, since your own tie-down methods were not something I ever addressed, let alone did I ever suggest that they were not sufficient. But since it seems to be important to you that I tell you my methods and tell you something about how long they've served me, I'll humor you. I've been carrying boats on vehicle roofs since 1974. Two of the previous vehicles I used for carrying boats for many years were light trucks (a Ford van and an IHC Travelall), and both had homemade front bumpers for most of the vehicle's life, so naturally, front tie-down points were not an issue (what person who carries boats on the roof wouldn't provide secure tie-down points on a bumper if he made it himself? In the case of these two vehicles, the bumper builder and original boat-carrying person was my father). On the other two vehicles, including the one I use now, I use the factory tow hooks as front tie-down points. Rear tie-down points on all vehicles have been trailer hitches (all were home-built, with tie-downs provided), though on the vehicle I drive now, the whole rear bumper and trailer hitch are part of a single structural unit, also home-built, and since I made it myself, I made sure there were plenty of anchor points for securing boats. The racks have either been home-built, or they were aftermarket racks with home-built modifications. Such a combination of aftermarket and home-built parts is what I use now, though my plans are to eventually switch to a 100-percent home-built rack. Your use of eye-bolts for front and rear tie-downs is fine, except that the advice that others do the same is mostly useless nowadays since there is no way to install them on modern honeycomb-plastic bumpers, which is what most cars have now, and if you could find a way, they wouldn't be very secure since the plastic is thin and would be very weak if pulled on in that manner. Eye-bolts are fine for steel bumpers though, and some vehicles still have them (even if only part of the bumper is steel in most cases).

As to the airflow that goes up and past the windshield, the thing that makes sense to me is to most closely approach a boat-less condition, rather than providing a barrier to the upward movement of that air. A hollow space within the canoe that the air can flow into if it wants, seems more like a boat-less condition than a flat barrier which the air is forced to go around, increasing air resistance in the process. The bottom of an "airplane wing" wouldn't be a good thing to have up there either if it were to obstruct the natural path of upward-moving air, and a "parachute" might not be so bad if it were rigid and aligned in such a way to let the air flow horizontally beneath the canopy, as is the case with a canoe. Anyway, when I came back from this weekend's trip, there was dirt and grass debris inside the hull, with most of it adhering so lightly that in it's dried condition the pieces fell free of the hull with just a light touch of a finger, so light in some cases I couldn't actually feel the contact myself. How did it stay there during a trip of more than 100 miles while going 55 miles per hour? I figure it's because the wind within the boat wasn't all that strong. Since I remembered your earlier post, I even tried blowing on some of the dirt chunks, and with a light puff, they fell right off. I think that's pretty compelling evidence that there wasn't much wind inside the boat. I'm guessing some parts of the hull experienced strong wind, but based on the lightly adhering dirt and grass occurring along most of the length of the floor, most parts certainly didn't. That jives with the observations I presented before.

I don't need you to explain what an eddy is, as far as turbulence behind the car goes. My previous post should have made that situation pretty clear, so again I must assume that you either didn't read it or didn't comprehend it.

Your response to my comment about restoring the properties of a whole batch of engine oil by adding a tiny bit of fresh oil daily (because the whole batch of oil is supposedly degraded after a mere one-day's use) didn't accomplish anything. When someone questions the logic behind a claim that you make, a good course of action would be to back up your claim with information from an authoritative source or your own observations. In this case, an ordinary person lacks the ability (either the knowledge, the tools, and usually both) to analyze the problem by observation, so information taken from the website of a motor-oil manufacturer or similar source would be ideal. Instead of doing something like that, you provided your own assumption about the reasoning behind your already-dubious claim. That course of action added nothing to your credibility. It detracted from it, actually, since it adds to the impression that you are just making this stuff up as you go. In any case, the whole idea that several quarts of damaged oil can be "repaired" by what's in an ounce of oil, and the idea that the chemical reactions that would be needed to accomplish this (if enough product were present, which clearly isn't possible) would happen spontaneously, is crazy. Do you even know anything about organic chemistry? I can't believe you've ever studied the subject, whether in college or on your own, or you wouldn't have such ideas.

I couldn't figure out the relevance of the other stuff you talked about. Clearly it was important to you, but its relationship to the topic was something I couldn't figure out. There were even a few "sentences" among that writing for which the purpose and meaning were entirely undecipherable, so it shouldn't be hard for me to remember in the future that this sort of discussion with someone having such an incredibly substandard level of writing ability is probably futile. Maybe it's only my problem-solving nature that makes me try.