Ignore The Insults, Eric
He apparently get’s some perverse gratification out of tossing his little insults. GIVEN ALL OTHER FACTORS BEING EQUAL, increased length will increase stability. No physics degree for me, but EXPERIENCE paddling lots of boats over the years. WW
yeah …
we do have a problem.
Please allow me to summarize our tiresome paddling.net exchanges.
You say something that is untrue; I point out an alternative reality.
You snap back at me and throw out a bucket-load of technicalities and diversionary tactics.
I remain on topic and do some fact-checking on your allegations.
And then you respond and whine about me being nasty.
And yes, it’s true. I am not your mother. As I said on another thread, you don’t need to win my approval for anything you think or want to do.
In the real world the person that yells the loudest the longest doesn’t always win; and repeating an untruth early and often enough does not make it true.
So give me your best shot, if it makes you feel better, as it is not uncommon for someone to attack the messenger when the messenger points out the error of their ways.
The boats you used as your prima facie evidence are not even close to being identical. If your response had been along the lines of “yeah. I made a mistake. Sorry. But I still think you’re wrong” things would be moving merrily along, instead of off onto the tangent into the dirt and mud you appear to enjoy.
And if you don’t enjoy it, why are you always dragging me down here?
Ta Ta
Thanks Terry
You are right. Anyway, there’s a definite consensus here, with MintJulip even saying exactly the same thing that I did in my first post, so no worries on my part. It’s pretty illustrative of the situation when the examples I picked are closer to being identical than any other two canoes in production and the similarity is smartly (and that’s not a pun) denied. Lesson learned. See you in the Ozarks this spring!
Another Yes
Without a doubt, a longer hull of the same width will be more stable than a shorter one. I have a couple of friends that are canoe designers and have been on the sidelines during conversations when this has been discussed. You notice I said on the sidelines as most of what they talk about is WAY over my head, technically speaking, but I do pick up on things like this now and again…
Jack
science project
OK – it’s time for a science project
Go buy a sheet of 4x8 plywood along with enough 3" thick packing peanut-type foam of equal area.
Rip the plywood to a width of 36-inches (standard width of a common, stable canoe).
Glue the foam to the plywood, and take it to your nearest physics lab with a float tank.
Now test for the amount of force applied to the turning arm that is needed to dip the plywood edge below the water’s surface.
Now cut 12-inches off on an end and repeat the test. You will find it takes less force to dip an edge under water thus proving longer is more stable.
But is it really? As I said in an earlier post – before getting drug down into the mud with a B&B wannabe – the additional stability gained exists, but it is immaterial.
Don’t believe me?
Repeat the experiment for yourselves and tell me how much safer you felt crawling out on the 8-foot plywood than you did the 7-foot plywood?
I picked these lengths as when doubled, we’re looking at 14 feet and 16 feet, which pretty much falls right in the middle of the range that most canoes are built, and I would trust, the realm of this discussion.
Alternatively, cut a two lengths of 2x4s, one 14 inches in length and the other 16 and play with them in your bathtub.
You’ll quickly find any difference in lateral stability is immaterial.
Plywood Sheets and Canoe Hulls…
…are like comparing apples and oranges. Geez, and you took issue with Guideboatguy when he compared two very similar hulls? I broke my silence and tried to reason with you when I said I wouldn’t try again. In the future I’ll try harder. Go paddle your piece of plywood, I’ll stick to canoes and kayaks. WW
Yep …
Never let the facts get in the way of what you want to believe as it’s way too inconvenient sometimes.
You say two opposite thing in one post
Don’t be surprised when people don’t agree with you - you don’t even agree with yourself.
You nicely demonstrate the effect of increasing the waterplane area longitudinally - proving longer is more stable all else equal - which is clearly a material difference! Then you say it is immaterial!
Methinks you simply like to argue - even if you have to do it with yourself!
if I owe you
$100 and I inadvertently pay you $101, there is a difference, but it is immaterial. I won’t get excited and want my extra dollar back and you won’t jump for joy as you pocket the extra greenback.
Immaterial means that something is known to exist, but in the larger scheme of things it really doesn’t matter that it does.
So no, I’m not saying two things at once.
A 14-foot canoe stretched out to 15-feet will have more theoretical stability, but the difference – although measurable – will be so minor that the paddler won’t be able to feel the difference – especially on any hull that has a round or shallow-V bottom.
Thus, the fact that it’s technically more stable is true, but immaterial.
See QCC600 vs 700 comments above
It does make a difference and it can be felt quite easily.
You can send all the immaterial $1 you want to me at any time. Meanwhile keep arguing if that’s what floats you - but realize no one else is - or needs to on this particular point!
Methinks
you may want to have a dictionary handy before posting. Do you really mean immaterial as opposed to negligible? I’m really not catching your drift that the the difference is “unimportant”.
BTW, I’m a lurker, you may want to look that one up, too.
Someone once said
"Observation is a merciless critic of theory."
Let’s all go paddling
1/15th is immaterial in length
The question is “does it make a difference” not “does a slight change in length make a big difference in stability”.
You say adding a little length makes a little difference though immaterial it is, and you’re correct.
hull length
length does add stability when all other parameters are held equal.
For an easier to understand example that uses canoes, at 15 feet a 32" wide canoe would be too unstable for most people to paddle as a tandem. A 15’ solo that is 32" wide would be very stable. At 18’6" in length we have the Wenonah Minnesota II that is just over 32" wide and is stable enough to be a tripping canoe that handles big lakes. 12-13 foot tandems get very wide, 38-40" is typical, because they do not have the length to give stability. A foot of length can make a noticeable difference, two feet makes a very noticeable difference.
Bill
The concept of the question applies
to aluminum jon boats also, and they offer better testing ground because they mostly all have modified v hulls. So, if you compare the overall stability of same width jon boats, a 12’ length will be more stable than a 10’ length, and any added length will be significant to an increase in stability. Anyone who has been in jon boats will attest to that, and that is why 17’ length jon boats are very popular now. And to think about it, that 17’ popularity also applies to canoes! Wow!
thank you
The early postings addressed a 14’6" boat and a 15’6" boat – a 6.8% increase in length with very little noticeable difference in stability – hence my immaterial comment.
For the posters that noted 10’ to 12’ foot (20%) increase, or 14’ to 18’ foot (28%) increase you are correct – it does make a difference when you begin talking larger numbers.
Please accept my apologies if I were misunderstood.
“hense my immaterial comment”
– Last Updated: Jan-25-06 10:42 PM EST –
Lets see, your first statement that difference of length was "immaterial" was posted seven minutes BEFORE I or anyone else said anything about comparing two boats with a length difference of as little as one foot, and it was posted as a response to the original question, which was quite general in it's wording. A reader might think you are back-peddling, but I'm sure you can "explain" it another way.
In case it makes any difference, actual lengths of the boats I was comparing were ~13'0" and 14'0". Composite versions of each are one-half foot longer, but I was comparing Royalex boats.
FWIW…
I own both a Vagabond and a Sandpiper, poly versions.
I, and all others who have paddled the boats, find the Vagabond noticeably more stable, both while under way as well as during entry & exit. The paddlers have ranged from newbies to experienced canoeists and all trials were side by side.
My preference is for the Sandpiper as its a bunch of fun to dance it around mellow rivers. The Vagabond is mostly a loaner or the craft of choice when one of my dogs is going along.
The Sandpiper has the dubious honour of being the boat which has dumped my arse in the water more times than any other craft I’ve ever owned - its a fun boat that’s hard to take serious! Just begs to be stood up on edge. Last fall I began to implement techniques learned from
Derek H’s, “Beyond the Cockpit” to the Sandpiper. That’s always good for a swim or two!
As an aside, I find your behaviour on this forum, even while under personal attack, exemplary. This lends much credibility to your posts.
Pleasant waters to you and yours.
Holmes
unbelievable
– Last Updated: Jan-26-06 2:12 PM EST –
Your tenacity and your ability to misread what is written are quite impressive.
Are you sure you don't have a B&B alias?
BTW -- the above post was my mea culpa and it wasn't supposed to be another opportunity for you to attack me yet again by responding to your own projections and interpretations of what you would like to think I wrote.
The intent was to allow the discussion thread to proceed without our side-line bickering.
It's something grownups learn to do in order to get along in society.
But I guess I overestimated our abilities.
Related thought…
…I’m interested in the W boat from Wavewalk.com, a catamaran kayak basically, two 10’hulls joined by a seat within a cockpit. Its stability is the main attraction for me, and the weight the only negative (56 lbs.) Seems to me that two 10’ hulls, about 6" wide each, give the wetted surface of a 20’ x 6" hull. Is there a reason that isn’t accurate?