rough comparison in Watts
No, no mixing tandems and solo low profile boats. The poster has one hull type in one category. Hulls in that category share characteristics.
The Sea Kayaker review material suggests means for comparison in the canoe category.
And someone has done some ground work for a canoe hull in the posters category.
While you’re here, how difficult is motoring an expedition hull upriver thru the shoals ?
I’ve camped and biked the Deschutes. Motor Boater ! Can a canoe do that ?
rough comparison in Watts
Don’t trust the motor maker
Take a look at the amperage ratings for marine electric motors. Multiply by voltage (say, 12 volts, or 13.2 volts, or whatever…) That will give you power, in watts. Divide by 746 (in the U.S. - other countries are different) to get consumed electric horsepower.
Now compare this to the rated horsepower of said motors. The rated horsepower will typically be 1 - 2 orders of magnitude higher, i.e., 10 to 100 times greater. Usually closer to 100 than 10.
(Incidentally, the actual effective horsepower that moves you - the horizontal force on the boat times the speed, with appropriate unit conversions, will be a good deal less than the electric horsepower consumed.)
If an electric motor could indeed put out more power than it takes in that would be amazing. Alas, this is not currently possible.
So this means that all figures published by marine motor makers, including current draw, thrust, and power, should be taken with an ocean sized grain of salt.
For that matter, static thrust (for a canoe that isn’t moving), which is probably what is rated, is completely different from thrust while moving any particular speed.
The correct answer is to experiment. See how far it goes at various settings.
I haven’t seen a log raft on the Columbia in years. And I guess I get your point about the occasional dipwad fisherman that thinks paddlers scare the fish. I don’t suppose those 3000 lb. sea lions and seals bother the fish at all though. It’s also strange that the fishing guide boats trolling with their 300 hp. outboards manage to catch a bunch of fish.
In all my time paddling, I’ve only been yelled at by one bank fisherman who didn’t like that I was running over his line. What a jerk; I was probably a hundred feet beyond his line which was probably also in 20 feet of depth. Meanwhile a harbor seal was busy ripping salmon off just about every line that hooked a fish.
Range ! Bearing !
Find wetted area of the electric canoe skiff and available electric power/speed from the builder.
Compare to your hull’s wetted area.
Compare your use age to the skiff’s use age.
Try using an available power calculation from the malinged link
Sea kayak versus canoe
You *specifically* told me you were looking at drag data for sea kayaks, and implied that the OP should use that data. That's the only reason I went to all that trouble to explain why I know canoes have more drag than sea kayaks. Further, I chose to do it as a two-step process since I already know there are huge differences within the solo category, where a given level of propulsion thrust (paddle power in this case, but thrust just the same) will produce a difference in travel distance of many miles by the end of the day among even the non-specialized choices, which is not good enough accuracy for the OP, I'm sure. For the second step of that explanation, I tried to make it clear that tandems have even more drag. It wasn't a case of mixing and matching boat types and confusing the issue as you now claim, but a direct response to your stated implications that there's no real difference in drag among all these craft.
For you, it was all about "kayaks" with every point you tried to make, and for all your posting of links of search results (not the same as useful articles), the ONE link that would have helped your case, and the one thing that would have made it seem like you were paying attention to important details over the course of several replies, was something you chose NOT to post a link to, and you didn't even quote any figures from that source - figures which were clearly needed to make your case. Odd that you'd let such an opportunity pass by, but that's assuming you actually found the data at all, since you waited until now to say you did.
As to questions like what I think about motoring upriver through shoals, that's one of many irrelevant questions you've asked or side-topics you've mentioned along the way. As in the other cases, the answer doesn't matter to me, as it's not part of the topic and it's most likely not something I'll ever do. Lack of focus on your part hasn't made this discussion any shorter or easier.
Hey, there were thousands of articles listed via that link, and with nearly all of them having nothing at all to do with boats, how could a person respond except to say that posting such a link falls far short of being useful? Anyway, wetted surface is only part of the problem, which is another example of why there's no shortcut using calculations based on hopeful approximations. You need to know about the actual drag, and as stated, it's much easier to measure than to calculate. And now that I think about it, you don't even need a motorboat. You could do it by passing a long rope to someone on shore (with a spring scale and GPS, as already discussed). Heck, in the time we've put into this, anyone here could have generated speed/drag curves for a couple of dozen different boats carrying different loads. The process would be that easy.
All good points
I think the tabulated data supplied by motor makers about battery life is based on actual motor usage, so that info should be pretty good. As to your other points, that’s why it needs to be specified what a power rating is based on, as depending on the method, it will or will not take into account loss within the system.
My first reply to the OP was in the same tone as what you are saying, in that since there’s not much chance of finding the info needed to answer the questions, the next best thing is to hook up the motor and go, and whatever will be, will be.