You seem to be operating under three misconceptions:
1- That there is some traditional kayak lobby that's resistant to change.
2- That "performance kayaks" or whatever you choose to call them are becoming more popular.
3- "Performance kayaks" are somehow superior to other designs.
I haven't seen any evidence of any of these things. Kayak companies build boats to suit specific types of paddlers and paddling. They optimize their designs based on what they want to the boat to do. Squared off ends, long waterlines and rudders are not optimum for many types of paddling and other designs perform better in many conditions. This has nothing to do with resisting change and everything to do with building products to suit the market.
While there do seem to be more companies in the "performance kayak" market, they still represent a tiny fraction of the total market and it doesn't seem like the number of such boats sold is really increasing, at least not around here. I haven't noticed any increase in the numbers of them I see on the water. In a typical year, I probably see more home-built wood and skin-on-frame boats on the water than "performance kayaks".
Old vs New: Link to Reputable Source While I do not paddle Epic boats or paddles, they are a major proponent of the new designs that we are all seeing more of. Here is a link to an article on Epic’s website that does a good job of explaining some of the benefits of Old vs New:
“Speed isn’t everything” seems to be the last defense of the traditionalists. I believe most people DO want the most forward progress they can get for their effort. This is called efficiency. You don’t hear the traditionalists saying “efficiency isn’t everything” but in effect that is exactly what they are saying.
As the article linked above explains, modern designs offer better efficiency and also a better ride when the conditions get rough.
OK… …I misread your statement about skirted cockpits, but you’re still treating traditional kayaks like they’re little more than interesting anachronisms that pale in comparison to “modern” designs. Nothing could be further from the truth. You’re also still implying that “performance kayaks” are superior to other types that are designed for completely different purposes, which is patently false.
Obviously, for you, going fast and long is the goal. We get that. However, that’s simply not true of many, if not most of us here. Our boat choices reflect what we like to do and the type of boat you espouse would not work for many of us.
If you’re going to continue to try to cram your “performance kayaks are better” belief down our throats, you’re going to continue to get the same reaction and push-back. There are no absolutes in kayak design and the boats you espouse are only “better” than other designs within a very limited definition of “performance”. The “best boat” is the one that suits one’s preferred type of paddling best, period.
Rudders in Tide Races I do paddle in tide races on a regular basis with a full time rudder. I’ve paddled The Race off Fisher’s Isalnd, and the reefs off Watch Hill numerous times. Frankly, I find the standing waves in tide races to be slow and often too close together to be as much fun as catchimg moving waves. But I never had maneuvering issues using a rudder in standing waves. It would make sense that a rudder would provide more maneuverability than a deployed skeg.
I usually find the waves that radiate away from the tide races to be faster and more fun to ride. Plus those waves bring me somewhere fast rather than hovering one spot.
Paddling tide races is a somewhat specialized activity. I’ve noticed that the people that live for this type of paddling prefer kayaks with lengths less than the wave periods. I’ve seen a lot of Explorers and similar shaped craft. These are usually really good paddlers who are also fun to hang around with.
Some time ago I was chatting with a very famous BCU senior coach over a beer. This woman ame over and asked how many stars I was. I said I have no stars at all. He laughed and said “That’s the best way to go.”
...which is that even though the BCU allows GPs, it forces GP users to adopt techniques optimized for Euro paddles, which in many cases are far less than optimum for a GP. It makes ZERO sense to do this, as the GP paddler is going to use the best technique for their type of paddle when they're actually paddling, not what is dictated by the BCU assessment program. If the BCU is serious about being "GP friendly", they need to adapt their assessments to allow extended strokes and other standard GP techniques. I doubt they care enough to bother with it.
The fact that assessors vary in their approach is a double-edged sword. On one hand, if they're pragmatic and more results-oriented than technique-oriented, that's good, but it also means that there is less consistency in the program.
Nigel is a great guy and watching him on the water is truly inspiring. He is one of the most elegant paddlers I've ever seen. He is also highly analytical - rather than dognmatic - and approaches problems with an open mind. Consequently, he's come up with a lot of really effective techniques for working with the water, rather than against it.
Sure, when I'm slogging home after a day on the water, I always wish my boat was faster (who doesn't), but when I'm actually doing what I like to do, gunkholing, playing in a rock garden or getting tossed around in rough water, speed is the farthest thing from my mind. It's completely irrelevant to the type of paddling I enjoy most. The type of boats you claim to be so superior wouldn't last an hour bashing around in rocks. Their blunt ends would slam into obstacles, rather than riding over them and an under-hull rudder would be sheared off in no time. Remember, there are few things slower than a boat with a hole in it.
You really need to come to grips with the fact that most people don't value the same attributes in a kayak that you do. Most probably don't have the same priorities that I do, either and I understand that. If someone asks me for a recommendation on a boat, the first thing I ask them is what type of paddling THEY like to do. THAT is the single most important criteria for determining the optimum boat.
Oh? …and have you ever done a BCU assessment? My understanding of your feelings about the ACA and BCU is that you have no use for either and don’t quite understand why anyone else would.
Before you knock a system that admittedly has its widgets, you might want to participate in it.
I know some BCU coaches that love GP’s and some not so much. It’s a bigger tent than you think.
So, what exactly would a candidate (who is there voluntarily to learn something and not press ganged from a port on the Thames) not gain by doing something differently with a paddle than they learned at Delmarva? Secondly, we all hear so often that the GP is so neutral in its ability to perform under a wide range of conditions what is the harm in asking a candidate to perform with it in a certain way? I’m sure many good coaches recognize it’s other intended properties but it is a wise policy not to get into all that and stick with the basics universal to all paddles (which are pretty simple, really). Let’s see what the paddler really knows.
Third, is there something else going on in a BCU star training besides extended strokes and how one sculls? Maybe there is a bit of leadership theory, some mindfulness of trip mates, some foundation strokes the candidate was not aware of, ya?
For me, one of the most interesting things about the BCU is that a person can be exposed to ideas from people they would not otherwise encounter. I can take a Nigel Foster or a George Gronseth clinic anytime I want around here, pracitically and there is a killer group of coaches on the Columbia as well. But let’s say I’ve heard of this Nigel Dennis fellow quite a bit, read his articles and hear he is doing a 4 star in my neighborhood in several months. I took a 3 star once and got permission from the faciltator to sign up so away I go. One would have to have an overly sensitive gasp reflex to find anything wrong in that.
Hey Salty, I have some friends that haven’t 2 stars to rub amongst themselves and these people are simply awesome to watch, truly inspiring to paddle with them. Then there are my pals that measure everything in terms of stars which gets annoying to even me. It’s a big world out there.
they never claimed to be "GP friendly" It’s the British Canoe Union not Qaannat Kattuffiat. It’s their game so we play by their rules. If you don’t like their rules, you don’t play which is a choice many of us make.
While I don’t like the fact that some less open minded coaches don’t like/understand GPs, the BCU doesn’t claim to be the ONLY system of kayaking (despite what BCU groupies may claim), just one of them. I’ve met BCU coaches on both ends of the GP spectrum and while most coaches still have much to learn in regards to greenland style paddling, with the growth of greenland style kayaking, it will soon be a tough thing to ignore. Mark Schoon is a GP enthusiast as is the much maligned Gordon Brown. Heck, Gordon strongly encouraged a buddy of mine to use extended strokes with his GP during training.
Now the ACA’s “Traditional Padding Endorsement”, now that’s a whole different story and just plain wrong.
I agree with you again Bynstrom I agree with you again. I never said the boats I prefer are the end-all-be-all for everybody. However, I do think there are many paddlers out there today who would find the modern style boat better suited for the type of paddling they do. I don’t know the exact numbers, but its something like 95% of the people are paddling forward 95% of the time. A boat that travels forward very efficiently is not a one trick pony either.
In a recent post I gave nods to the British style boats for use in standing waves like in tidal races. This is what I see alot of these people using. My current 20 ft surfski is too long for most of these standing waves. My boat is incredibly maneuverable, but it tends to bridge the crests and rides over and through the short steep standing waves. A shorter boat is better in these short steep waves because it fits in the troughs.
I frequently rip around rocks in my 20 ft surfski. As long as I am moving forward I have no troubles seeing and avoiding rocks. But I would not be happy planting myself in between a bunch of potatoes and sitting there watching the waves go by. A shorter boat with more rocker would be a better choice. If sitting in rock gardens is your thing then you should definitely select a boat designed for that specific purpose. The Epics or any of the QCC’s are not bad at rock gardens. I always lifted my rudder when in tight maneuvering situations when I had a QCC700. If rock gardens were my first priority, I would have bought a different boat. If it was something I did only occasionally then the modern designs are still suitable.
There are some people that prefer to sit in one place and practice a variety of rolls. There are boats better suited for this type of more acrobatic paddling.
Much more interesting points of view here than I would have guessed would come up.
All of the BCU coaches I have encountered who have at least passing use of GP's use them to paddle in the way they were intended. The only coaches I know who aren't as comfortable with that are not GP users themselves, though those who have never dipped is a diminishing pool. I could say the same thing about ACA folks who have never used a GP. Bottom line, I think it's hard for someone to assess a paddler using a tool with which they lack personal familiarity. Not impossible, but harder.
Otterslide's point is a really interesting one - that coach candidates in the new more modular system may end up learning a broader variety of tools. Requiring the single-bladed canoe work is certainly going to present additional work for some kayak-only folks. Will the GP creep into this more if someone shows up with one? Maybe
This absolutely remains to be seen because the coach system in NA will be phased in later than the now-active star changes (per the BCU NA site before I get whacked on where I got that from). But it seems like a logical outcome of the changes.
true but i do think that TITS was done well enough, better than most, to have a substantial effect on a lot of people. the boats and paddlers were always there, but i get the impression, that TITS made it much more appealing to a wider array of paddlers, and has beckoned a number of them into these old, outdated, traditional boats with skegs. i know i was one of them…
engaged, curious, interested, etc… I first met Nigel Foster at GOMSKS.
He is a gracious and interested man. I spoke with him about his boats - he put me in a Legend and talked to me before and after paddling regarding how it felt to me and how to play with it.
He jumped in a few boats and tried different paddles, and gear. He was articulate, keenly observant, responsive, and insightful.
Anyone who thinks British coaches are inherently dogmatic or stiff needs to spend a bit of time with Foster.
Does anybody just paddle anymore??? I learned from awesome boaters, one of which ex-Olympic Coach, in a trial by fire way. It was about just paddling with your buds and going to cool places doing cool trips. You had to get good enough to survive and not embarrass yourself…
That was about it… I’m not dissin these programs at all, but jeez the followers get clinical to the point where I wonder what’s the driver??
I am pretty sure that most of the folks above paddle their butts off, and enjoy it. I expect to participate as soon as the ice floes are off the river myself. At least a few also have an interest in an organization that is going through some changes. Big whup.
Near as I can tell everyone is still getting on the water, and isn't that the point?
Exactly It IS a bigger tent and a whole lot more than someone who admires Nigel Foster for his lack of dogmatism claims, yet is extremely dogmatic himself , thinks.
Not to beat a dead horse, but stars do not a paddler make. There are two or three 4s in my area who I wouldn’t paddle with and who’ve given me and others considerable reason to wonder how they ever passed their assessments. The reason? Despite the trainings and the “experience”, they still have no judgment and are a danger to themselves and others. On the other hand, there are “starless” people I’d follow across hell because I trust them for their level of skill, coolness under pressure, and the fact they have judgment and common sense.
The Big Tent has room for those who choose to go the BCU or ACA (not a favorite of mine) route and feel that the star(s) is a good marker for them. There are others who don’t see the need and paddle on a 5 level. However, no one should put another person down – or judge them – for the choices they’ve made.
I paddle with a specific group – we’re not a club per se – all of whom had their 4s (and had done, in a few cases, 5 trainings)long before I did. I was asked to join and it was one of the best things that happened to me because, while I was never pressured to get my 4*, I was mentored enough to feel that I could get it. The rest was all gravy.
I’ve had BCU coaches since I first put my butt in a kayak. The method of instruction has worked very well for me and I’ve always felt that I, as a result, knew how to paddle efficiently and safely. Which is, I believe, what kayaking should be about. But what has worked for me may not for someone else, and that’s fine, too.
What about the retail reps who are the first line of sales for Kayak manufacturers? No doubt, that the tools they use creep into their chats with seasoned kayakers or people brand new to the sport.
Geography - I noticed coming from the east coast of canada, where P&H, NDK take the cake with majority of boats that you see. Here on the west coast, the vast majority of boats I see are Nimbus, Necky, Current designs, Seaward
I have yet to see a QCC in front of me though…Epic is big here too, and now valley is finally making their impression and hopefully with that as will North Shore…
