Great a new excuse to buy!
Hey I knew if I kept asking I would find a new excuse to buy
one more boat. Seriously, nice answers from you both, didn’t make sense to me until now.
That’s a fair point
Great fitness and ability isn’t needed for such a pace but I’ll grant that some practice and good body mechanics are needed. I paddle excessively so I’m not a good test subject. My brother, however, only paddles a couple of times per month but he doesn’t have any trouble maintaning 5mph for extended periods in his Legend. True though, he isn’t a beginner either and does keep fit via other activities in the interum.
The take home really is that at 3-4mph it doesn’t much matter what you are paddling as far as effort goes. You might as well get a boat that fits you and your gear capacity needs and that you can manage on and off the water.
Annecdote from this week on the subject:
I was getting ready to launch a power boat for work and saw an Epic Endurance paddle by the ramp. He had the full kit too. Carbon Epic paddle, fancy pfd, spare paddle on the rear deck, boat was brand spankin new… He arm paddled away, making maybe 2-3mph. Here he had a $2500 boat and a $400+ paddle and he could be doing just as well in an Old Town Castine with a bargain paddle from REI. So no, just buying the long boat doesn’t get you any benefit. Though sometimes the ambitious beginner will grow into the longer boat quickly enough.
Don’t say “QCC Hulls”…
– Last Updated: Dec-01-04 7:30 PM EST –
...as if that means something.
While the boats share a visual similarity - they are very different and designed for different things.
Would you say "WS Hulls" or "CD Hulls" or any other brand that makes a range of boats and then spout off about specific handling characteristics as if they were all the same?
My point is you are making generalities about things you don't know and haven't paddled. I would not want a Q500/400/300. I have no use for such a boat. If given one I'd sell it. The Q600 & 700 are newer designs and intended for very different paddlers and ranges of conditions than the others.
While I might agree the Q700 is more suited to covering distance - that does not have to be on flat water. Would I recommend it for poking around rock gardens in large surf? No. Playing in breakers? No. It would do fine to get you in and out - but handling in those conditions is mainly dependent on the paddler anyway. Would I say it's good for coastal touring? Yes. As good as you are anyway.
We agree that a lot goes into picking the right boat - if you want specific things from it. That boat won't excel at everything - or be as good for others as it is for you. Finding a do it all boat is impossible, but there are some 80/20s out there.
Talk like this is OK for those who know their needs, have paddled in several boats, have an idea how design features translate to performance, and may own several to cover a range of uses.
For beginners and single boat owners - we only make their lives difficult with this stuff. We can make it all seem too complicated and get them paranoid about being in the "wrong" boat.
To them I must add: The "right" boat is the one you have. The best boat is the next one...
windage, volume, and paddler size
Recent annecdote.
I spent Thanksgiving on Tybee. The wind blew vigorously onshore on Friday. I played on the surfski on Friday morning between the beach and the range light offshore a bit adjacent to the approach to the river. Seas were 2-3’, really disorganized, and steep (must be mighty shoally out there). Had a blast on the ski doing triangles with one leg side-to the wind, one leg upwind, and one leg downwind. The upwind bits were a brutal slog though.
In the afternoon I grabbed my Q600 to play in the rough. I haven’t had a touring kayak in the rough since I bought the surfski 18months ago. Man that was fun. At 190lbs, I’m actually heavier than the recommended paddler in a 600. I sink it pretty deep. The ski is 21’ and the Q600 is 16’8". The Q600 was much easier to push into the wind due to much less windage. The ski had a huge edge in beam and following wind and waves but upwind the lower volume, short boat kicked butt. That makes me think that a boat like the Romany would kick all kinds of butt for just cruising in the rough.
The day we get any waves…
…down here, I’ll have to steal Kim’s Pintail and hit the beach. Spins on a dime. Should be fun. Less LWL definitely loosens things up.
Greyak
Fair comment about QCC. I was referring to the fast hulls. I think they are Winters designs? Not certain. I also noted that they should be good in big swell conditions. As you noted, they would not be a lot of fun for rock gardening, big clapotic conditions etc. I have paddled similar hulls, and they work well. Pintail is one of my favorite boats. Fast enough, and very playful. Excellent in wind.
I think these threads are interesting and I hope useful for those getting started. There is some confusion out there at the retail level.
There are no "similar hulls"
to the QCCs unless you go generic and say all kayak hulls are “similar”.
If looking at the details of design, as you seem to be, I’ve yet to see anything really very close. Single elements yes, but not in the same mix. Bow angle does not a hull make.
Closest at quick glance to Q700 is EPIC 18 - but they are VERY different hulls from design intent all the way through to execution (there was a good thread on exactly this not long ago). Any similarity is due to some shared efficiency where their intents overlap (and some similar harware options).
Yes, all QCCs are John Winter’s designs.
Back To The Original Post
Well anyway, it is a very interesting spreadsheet, and I was pleased to see where my boat fell within it. Paddling is one of the greatest pleasures of my life and we are very fortunate to have this simple and affordable sport. Have fun, paddle well, be safe.
Beating an old horse
Imagine two almost equal bicycles. Only difference is that bicycle #1 is a bit lighter and has slightly less windage than #2. The aerodynamics properties of #1 are therefore better and hence #1 is “faster” than #2.
Now imagine that bicycle #2 has clip-in pedals whereas bicycle #1 only has regular style pedals.
Which bike is now the faster one? Bio mechanics can’t be ignored.
The analogy to kayaking is simple. You want to have a narrow boat to insert the paddle close to the centreline. You want a relative lose fit to allow real body rotation. You want to paddle with the legs raised to allow an efficient pumping style.
I’d rather be in a ‘slow’ kayak which allows me to paddle efficient than in a ‘fast’ kayak which restricts my paddling style.
/Peter
Case in point - the Sonoma 13.5
Peter is right about the biomechanical factors related to different boats. Take my little Sonoma 13.5 for instance, with it’s 12 foot water line. The deck in front of the cockpit becomes narrow very quickly because the boat is so short. This allows a more vertical paddle insertion than on my QCC 600. The Sonoma also has tons of room under the front deck, so legs can be pumped even with knees under the thigh braces. You can get 20+ degrees of body rotation in each direction from using your legs alone. Of course, the Sonoma tops out more quickly than longer boats, but it’s a super-efficient little cruiser.
BTW, speaking of biomechanics, EPIC now has a 2nd Edition of the Forward Stroke DVD. It’s more than double the material of the 1st edition, and the footage of Greg Barton paddling is as inspiring as it is instructional. I like it better than Brent Reitz’s video which never discusses use of the legs as a source of rotation.
K1-like boats
There have been some very interesting recent reviews/discussion of a couple K1-inspired boats, Nelo Razor and SRS Laser. These are severely swede-form and are very narrow ahead of the paddler, at least partly for efficient paddling stroke, as you describe.
I’ve been wondering how these stack up to conventional fast sea kayaks, they aren’t super-long (17 ft, I assume due to rules) and not very bouyant in the bow, so the effective waterline length is probably less than that. I believe John Winters would describe the knife-like bows on these as “deadwood”, adding friction without much floatation benefit.
Yet, of course, they can go fast, the shape seems designed to minimize hull-speed effects so they are routinely pushed well beyond that, at least by good paddlers. Question is, what are their drag numbers in the 4-6 knot range. Don’t see any of these types in the table, there is a Nelo in there, that ranks very high, but it doesn’t seem to be quite as radical in hull form as these.
Mike
FW 2000
The Nelo boat that ranks high is the Nelo FW 2000.
It’s definitely a boat for an experienced and highly patient paddler.
I tried it for a small trip(200 meters) and never have I been that slow in a boat before. In other words, I was bracing at every stroke.
I rolled it once and failed at second try as I pulled myself out og the cockpit. The tighbraces are rather minimal.
Photo #1 and #2 on this page shows the boat(it’s the yellow one).
http://www.hamberg.dk/blog/arkiv/2004/08/01/sea_challenge_fyn_dag_1
/Peter
Neat pictures, thanks,
yeah, that boat looks pretty intimidating.
The two models I mentioned are claimed to be more stable than real racing K1s, though I’m sure that assessment’s somewhat relative.
Mike
Volume
The Nelo Razor got enough volume in the front as a day touring kayak. It is as stable as a sea kayak but you can paddle it as a racing kayak. With no doubt the Nelo Razor is faster than a sea kayak under normal conditions.
The Nelo FW2000 is more extreme, but is really fast if you can controll it. BWL is only 37 cm.
http://www.arnstrom.org/images/Erik%20i%20mal_E7.jpg
Spreadsheet doesn’t seem right
Even with the geometrically diminishing returns of longer, narrower boats and harder paddling, I would have expected the race boats like the FW2000 to have a bit more of an edge over basic but efficient sea kayaks. For instance, by interpolation or just plotting a curve, for the same power it takes to make the FW2000 go 6 knots (6.9 mph), the Sultan (which is 16 boats down on the list when sorted for 6 knot speed) would go about 5.7 knots (6.56 mph). Based on empirical evidence, like browsing race results, I would have thought there’d be a greater difference than only 0.3 knots for the same effort. Yes, it makes a big difference in a race, but consider that, if a wing paddle gives a 5% increase in speed, then the Sultan and a wing paddle would equal the speed of the FW2000 without the wing, if the spreadsheet were correct. Does anyone with a “race” boat or surf ski have any speed comparisons they can offer when paddling their fast boat at the same effort as their sea kayaks?
Effort actually paddling is subjective
and paddler skill generally improves as they upgrade boats. I think it would be hard to get decent answers to your questions.
There are also a lot of middle pack paddlers who would be faster in the Sultan than the FW2000 due to stability issues.
Too many variables.
On the other hand, nearly 1/2 mph faster adds up to a lot of minutes shaved off. May nor seem like much to you, but pretty significant to me.
Spreadsheet is a prediction…
So I wouldn’t assume it is accurate especially at higher speeds.
In the paper “Hydrodynamic Drag of Small Sea Kayaks”, the authors concluded that the math models are typically better for lower speeds and less accurate for higher speeds. One of the authors was John Winters. See: http://www.cyberiad.net/library/kayaks/skmag/skmag.htm
I think this is also shown when comparing the Winters vs Broze drag predictions in SeaKayaker boat reviews. Seems like the predictions agree fairly well at low speeds and differ sometimes significantly at higher speeds.
I’m also curious if any of you performance sea kayakers have attempted to measure drag. Seems like some interesting “real world” data could be obtained by just using a $20 digital fish scale, a GPS, and a towline.
-Bob
Someone must have some data on this.
I’m still curious about the advantage of faster boats, and suspect, as someone else noted, that the tables are more accurate for slower speeds. Of course, all boats produce nearly the same drag at slower speeds, so why do we need a table to tell us about totally insignificant differences? What about data where it matters?
I know that I can nearly replicate my paddling effort from boat to boat, both at my typical touring effort, and of course, at maximum effort. I’m sure that paddlers with fast boats can give some comparison of fast boats versus sea kayaks at comparable levels of effort. Otherwise, on what basis would one decide whether to buy a “faster” boat if you already had a decent sea kayak? (Kris, I thought you had a surf ski, and unless it’s too tippy to paddle hard, I know you can come up with a more informative answer.)
Sit-position
If you add a better sit-position and a better usage of the paddle to the hull advantage you will go faster than what it looks like on the paper.
Sea kayaks are not fast because they are not designed to be so. If you want to be able to paddle fast, use a surf ski or a scandinavien touring kayak.
Don’t forget, the canoeist is the most important component in a fast kayak. Learn from race paddlers how to use your body and the paddle. Sorry to say, it but most sea kayak instructors got a really bad forward stroke.
/Erik
“Forward Stroke”
– Last Updated: Dec-03-04 9:51 PM EST –
You said it! "Sorry to say it but most sea kayak instructors got a really bad forward stroke." and don't even look at their students :D
Sea Kayaks in general are unnecessary wide, stable, and with huge "paddle entry," so very difficult to perform a good forward stroke.
Backbands produce horrible sitting positions not allowing a proper forward stroke.
Most sea kayaks are unnecessary heavy as though they were used to break ice. Anything over 40lbs is heavy if you are not an expert playing in rock gardens.
In addition, also as you said, the canoeist or "paddler" is by far the most important component of the equation, maybe up to 70%. Therefore, although a fast boat is a necessary conditon to be fast, it is not a sufficient one. Recreational paddlers always make the mistake about this...
Regards,
Iceman