know the answer? Any one who has a basic understanding of primary stability (like,... can read the descriptions in sea kayaker) would know that the upside to is is the ability to relax n calmer water and that the downside to it is that the same righting force becomes tipping force in a beam sea. This is published near ever stability chart in sea kayaker magazine!
Was the dig the thing about the surfboard? The argument that secondary is a myth seems to suffer in the light of that example. I did not see you advancing that argument though I did see you slipping toward the slope of that pit of unreason.
If it was my remark about wanting to be an advanced paddler one day; hey that's true. Got a problem with the fact that I capsize all the time and that my forward stroke needs work? OK have a problem. (I don't often take the time to read profiles, but now that I've read yours; Yes I do wonder how an advanced paddler can ask this question: "is there a down side to good initial stability in a sea kayak?"
It seems to be the fashion to ask a basic question, (like is there a down side to good initial stability in a sea kayak, or why a $1000 drysuit and then totally diss those who answer. Hope you are enjoying yourself.
Here's more answer for you.
Round bottom hulls are (in general faster than hulls which offer more primary stability. Of course you have to allow for the fact that a fair amount of energy will be spent balancing and bracing a round hulled boat. As a design moves away from round hulls it should become more stable. If the roundness became a shallow arch then there will be a great increase in primary. If the roundness became a razor V instead the secondary will increase. So we see an inverse relationship between speed and stability. This is another dowmnside to higher initail stability
I find the explorer to have less primary stability than, say, the aquanaut. I weigh 220. I would much rather be in my explorer than in my old caribou in rough water though the caribou has much more initial stability. I weigh 230 with short legs a log torso and a lot of weight in the shoulders. If I weighed 170 I would never have sold the caribou.
Everyone knows the answer about primary stability and waves, but I’m with jbv in being a little skeptical about whether that answer is right, or at least whether it’s meaningful within the range of kayak beams (say 17-30 inches or so). Even a very wide kayak hull (e.g. my barge-like OK Cabo tandem) is narrow enough to be perfectly manageable in active water, and it’s a whole lot easier to stay on in that stuff than a very narrow, highly responsive hull (e.g. Mako Millenium).
What does make a huge difference is how the hull responds as it starts to lean. It’s certainly true that wide, flat-bottomed, square-sided boats are nasty in waves, but IMHO that’s because the flat bottom and square sides create a really ugly transition between squarely right side up and squarely upside down, not because of excessive primary stability per se.
good point My objection to the boats I’ve tried with “too much” primary is that I can’t get them on edge when I want to, and if I can edge them I have no idea what they’ll do next. A smooth transition and good manners on edge would be a big help.
Some of it’s just a matter of taste – if the boat is too stable I feel more like a passenger than a participant. Must be all those hours sailing a Sunfish as a kid…
Yup I’m not trying to pick a fight here or anything, it’s just slowly grown on me over time that the conventional explanation of why sea kayaks behave better than rec boats in waves is a little off, and that comparing the hull shapes of rec boats with some SOTs (with beams in the rec boat range but hull shapes closer in some ways to sea kayaks) offers some clues as to where it’s off.
squarely right side up… …, or squarely upside down, pretty much defines initial stability.
The transitions and flip point is key though for how much is too much or too little of either - and what we actually deal with. Varies by paddler and conditions too.
My Tarpon was pretty hard to flip - but when it did it went fast. Stayed upside down well too! My SINK offers a lot more variety of angles it’s happy at, giving me more options.
Can’t speak for the technical Can’t speak for the technical aspects but I bought an Explorer HV three years ago. My previous boat was a Necky Tesla which is 25" wide with lots of primary stability. Too much, I found out because this was my first boat.
The Explorer felt twitchy when I got it but now it doesn’t. Less primary stability is easier to paddle in waves, and easier to put on edge. It has great secondary as well, so it stays on edge very well. You’ll get used to it.
Transitions aren’t about how much primary stability is too much, but about how a hull design that maximizes primary stability for a given beam is likely to have little or no secondary stability and an ugly transition from right side up to swimming.
I’m not trying to sell anyone on high primary stability. I agree that lower primary stability is often part of an attractive set of handling characteristics. Where my comments are coming from is my own thought process of trying to reconcile the conventional wisdom that wide beam and high primary stability are bad in waves with my own experience in wide-beamed, stable SOTs that are very easy to paddle in waves (the Scupper especially, but even the Cabo; my old Cobra Expedition was more the flat-bottomed, square-sided shape with an abrupt transition to upside down). I think that conventional wisdom comes from comparing rec boat hulls to sea kayak hulls, and I think it’s a bit off for the reasons I’ve stated.
I Just Know What I Like I prefer a low-in-the-water, stable feel. I know some of the “twitchy” feel is related to volume. In a Tempest 170 I bob around 'cause I only weigh 165 pounds and carry minimal gear (Day Tripper yeah) In a Tempest 165 the bobber feel goes away. Much more stable, initially.
I thought I would experience the same thing with the QCC boats. I didn’t. I felt nearly as “twitchy” in a QCC600 as in a 700. I guess hull shape is more of a factor here than just volume?
600/700 600 feels twitchier to me to. Sort of oppostive of your 165/170 thing. I may sink the 600 a bit deeper - but that doesn’t make it steadier. The extra length on the 700 = more stability for me.
Funny how impression of twitichy changes over time too. I’d consider both to be pretty rock solid now. I can be very lazy/relaxed in them.
The Nordkapp with padded up foam seat I tried Sunday had less initial, but I couldn’t even really call it tippy either. Definitely more “active” and took more effort - also felt like it needed a lot more weight, and I’m not light, and would be happier loaded to the gills an in rougher water. 170 I tried was crazy stable. Both seem short to me. The bob around a lot compared to the 700 with it’s long waterline.
Do they really behave better? Have you tested this, or are you assuming things. I’d paddle a Necky Manitou in ten foot seas gladly, and i’d choose it over any of their ruddered sea touring boats. Ever paddle a Coaster? Long and skinny does not ensure great seaworthiness!
I think I what I have in mind is rec boats designed for flat water vs. good sea boats, but have very little time in either. That Manitou looks like a much higher class of rec boat.
As noted elsewhere in the thread, my comments are coming out of my own efforts to reconcile oft-read Internet wisdom about narrower boats handling waves better with my own experience in wide, forgiving SOTs, mostly the Scupper Pro. OTOH, the Mako Millenium, which is about as squirrelly as you'd really want to get for initial stability, is really a sweet hull if you can stay with it (I mostly hack away, but get enough glimpses of what it can do to encourage me to keep hacking).
Next boat will be in the 16'x22" range and closed-deck, so I'll get a little more mainstream experience to go with my time on both dimensional fringes.
Cadence Lp? I realized that I have seen a Cadence, though I don’t know if the one marked Lp is similar to the Formula version. Saw a Cadence Lp in a paddle group last night, had seen it a while before and forgotten. Older boat, well-built from the looks of it, little perimeter rigging compared to current boats, decks that are high compared to my Explorer but probably were extremely low some years ago compared to most North American boats, I’d guess an average beam compared to current boats and looked to be a somewhat less active hull than say a hard chined Foster boat. Formula like this but diff?
Purpose built/design Different boats are designed to support different uses. The Nordkapp is notoriously tender unladen. It was designed specifically for expeditions. When heavily loaded, a Nordkapp is amnong the more stable and fastest of kayaks in textured seas.
When I’ve paddled an unloaded Nordkapp, I felt as if I was skittering around on top of the water.
It is kind of silly that so many of us are paddling expedition boats as day boats.
Day Boats The above list has some great boats. Even better, the about 16’ crop of boats includes a lot that are really fun boats to spend time in because they have the stabilities of bigger boats with a lot more action. So if you get caught out in more than you intended the boats will handle it, but in the meantime you can have a ball with being sideways and upside down in them. We’ve paddled a bunch, currently have a Vela for me and are waiting for delivery on a Romany. (which also comes in a low volume version)
My only complaint is that an average sized woman will still find that there is some fitting to be done to get these boats on their bodies right. Even the Vela, clearly a small person’s boat, took some extra padding and moving the seat forward to get it set up for me. But it is a very fun boat, and nicely sized for shorter trips at 15’8".
Except for SOF… … those are not what I mean by day boats.
They’re just shorter, or maybe for smaller paddlers. Maybe a bit more playful - but that would be “play boats”, which is not always the same thing as “day boats”.
They still have a lot more volume/weight/features than you need for a couple hour leisure or workout paddle. They have the same features larger as expedition/touring boats. You could easily do overnights (or weeks in them) you just couldn’t go as far as they are a bit slower.
When I say day paddling boat I mean a light weight low volume minimalist boat that has no emphasis on gear hauling (could be for play, or covering ground, or whatever - lot’s of design options). None on your list, except one-off SOFs (which are hardly commercial), really fit that.
There are lots of day boats for specialized uses: Surf Skis and race boats are examples of commercial “day boats” for open water go fast paddlers. WW boats are day boats for river running. In the sea/tour performance range the options get pretty thin.
day boat? Greyak–would you include the BBK Valkyrie or Idun in your category of day boats? They’re pretty minimalist, low volume. You can squeeze backpacking gear in there, but they seem a lot better suited to day trips than long trips.
sort of. Maybe even the Recluse if it were built light enough - but at similar size and weight to my Q700 - I'd have to say no. It's all relative and I'm comparing to a Kevlar boat.