-
Happy National Eggnog Day! 🎄🥛😵
Barrens build
- Thread starter Alan Gage
- Start date
PM me your e-mail and I'll send it tonight.
Oh, and tell me what version you're running so I don't send too new of a format.
Alan
I keep thinking about being alone in the middle of nowhere on gigantic lakes. Crossing. Then wind and waves pick up. Just the thought of it scares me, and so I've generally avoided that kind of canoeing (and don't like oceans either). I much prefer rivers, swamps, and small lake-river connections.
But if I were in such a hypothetical giant lake, such as the myth-shrouded Nueltin, I'd probably want a canoe that would provide maximum control in my most feared situation. Heck, any canoe can be paddled on glass or slow rivers.
In that context of big lake wind and waves pushing me out of control, I wonder whether an asymmetrical sheer (not shear) line would be a detriment. I can see deepening the bow to minimize plunge water on lakes and rivers. I can also see a differential sheer line on a river canoe where wind is not usually much of a factor. But on canoe for big lakes, a differential sheer line with a deeper bow will shift the CLR forward, creating asymmetrical "sail" force mischief in the wind. I think it would tend a canoe to leecocking, which is worse in general than windcocking, even in a canoe that is otherwise perfectly trimmed via load balance. Wind/leecocking are functions of both canoe/paddler profile and load distribution.
Just thoughts again, but I think the most wind neutral canoe would have both symmetrical rocker and symmetrical sheer, but even so could probably have an asymmetrical waterline with clever design.
I was emphasizing my Huki rudder primarily to agree that a rudder, any rudder, has tremendous benefits in my feared wind and wave scenarios. Yes, my rudders are simply composite blades having a shaft with screw threads on the end. The shaft goes into a metal tube, which must be encased in some sort of narrow enclosure, perhaps not box-shaped, and a knob screws on top. It just seems like something that could be built right into a sloped stern float tank of a canoe. It appears to me to be a much simpler design than an over-stern retractable rudder, but I agree that the benefits of retraction might outweigh simplicity of design for tripping in varied waters. (So I started a new thread on the retractable skudder.)
Maybe I'm wrong, Alan, but I think of you as primarily a sitting switch paddler. If so, you would paddle rapids and utilize hull heels much differently, and probably much less, than I would as primarily a kneeling paddler. Even when just paddling forward in a loaded canoe, I'll often heel slightly to my paddle side just to get closer to the water to do certain single-sided strokes. So you are right to design your canoe for the type of paddle style you primarily use.
But if I were in such a hypothetical giant lake, such as the myth-shrouded Nueltin, I'd probably want a canoe that would provide maximum control in my most feared situation. Heck, any canoe can be paddled on glass or slow rivers.
In that context of big lake wind and waves pushing me out of control, I wonder whether an asymmetrical sheer (not shear) line would be a detriment. I can see deepening the bow to minimize plunge water on lakes and rivers. I can also see a differential sheer line on a river canoe where wind is not usually much of a factor. But on canoe for big lakes, a differential sheer line with a deeper bow will shift the CLR forward, creating asymmetrical "sail" force mischief in the wind. I think it would tend a canoe to leecocking, which is worse in general than windcocking, even in a canoe that is otherwise perfectly trimmed via load balance. Wind/leecocking are functions of both canoe/paddler profile and load distribution.
Just thoughts again, but I think the most wind neutral canoe would have both symmetrical rocker and symmetrical sheer, but even so could probably have an asymmetrical waterline with clever design.
I was emphasizing my Huki rudder primarily to agree that a rudder, any rudder, has tremendous benefits in my feared wind and wave scenarios. Yes, my rudders are simply composite blades having a shaft with screw threads on the end. The shaft goes into a metal tube, which must be encased in some sort of narrow enclosure, perhaps not box-shaped, and a knob screws on top. It just seems like something that could be built right into a sloped stern float tank of a canoe. It appears to me to be a much simpler design than an over-stern retractable rudder, but I agree that the benefits of retraction might outweigh simplicity of design for tripping in varied waters. (So I started a new thread on the retractable skudder.)
Maybe I'm wrong, Alan, but I think of you as primarily a sitting switch paddler. If so, you would paddle rapids and utilize hull heels much differently, and probably much less, than I would as primarily a kneeling paddler. Even when just paddling forward in a loaded canoe, I'll often heel slightly to my paddle side just to get closer to the water to do certain single-sided strokes. So you are right to design your canoe for the type of paddle style you primarily use.
I, for one, am excited to paddle the "Barren" someday !
That amount of rocker will be new to me. I've never built that much into my hulls.
The flare will make it quite bouncy in the waves, but hopefully drier.
Rocker should make handling big lake waves, as well as river rapids easier.
It will be interesting to see if the speed suffers, in accual use.
I applaud Alan for putting what looks good on paper, on the water.
We all have our ideas of what a hull should look like, too few of us are willing to build !
Thanks for going out on a limb so to speak Alan !
Jim
That amount of rocker will be new to me. I've never built that much into my hulls.
The flare will make it quite bouncy in the waves, but hopefully drier.
Rocker should make handling big lake waves, as well as river rapids easier.
It will be interesting to see if the speed suffers, in accual use.
I applaud Alan for putting what looks good on paper, on the water.
We all have our ideas of what a hull should look like, too few of us are willing to build !
Thanks for going out on a limb so to speak Alan !
Jim
Alan,
I added a rudder to my Wenonah Wilderness as an experiment and I love it. Spring loaded, very quick to deploy and to retract, easy to remove but I find I leave it attached all the time even when portaging. I stole some of Mike McCrea's ideas on rudder line routing as the simplest way to go.
I added a rudder to my Wenonah Wilderness as an experiment and I love it. Spring loaded, very quick to deploy and to retract, easy to remove but I find I leave it attached all the time even when portaging. I stole some of Mike McCrea's ideas on rudder line routing as the simplest way to go.
That makes sense. I do worry a little bit about that high sheer (not shear, thanks), especially in the bow, being pushed around by the wind but I felt it was necessary to keep the water out both from rapids and big lake waves. All my solo canoes (purchased and built) have had asymmetrical sheer and so far none of them have had a tendency to lee cock. I usually find myself having to move the seat, and sometimes the gear and dog, farther back to get it neutral to the wind. But none of them have had quite that much sheer in the bow.
Will be an interesting summer trying this canoe out in varying conditions. No real long trips planned for next year, maybe just a short 2-weeker, so plenty of time to redesign and rebuild over the winter if things don't work out.
That's correct that I'm primarily sit and switch. I only kneel for whitewater or big waves on open water. But with this canoe at 32" wide that paddling style might not be quite as efficient so I may start doing a little more single sided paddling while slightly heeled.
I share many of those sentiments although I'm getting more comfortable on big water. To me paddling big water seems more fun/interesting on paper than it does it real life. A steady mix of portage connected lakes and rivers is my preferred habitat but I keep feeling the pull of farther North and, up there, having some big lakes in the mix is hard to avoid.
I thought of you more than once on my recent trip, Glenn, when crossing Wollaston Lake in some big waves. There was a conversation here once about handling a canoe in waves and you'd talked about healing the canoe away from beam waves to let the hull better deflect them. I know that's not a technique you came up with but you get credit anyway since it was the first time I'd heard it mentioned. I don't think I would have thought to try that on my own but it made perfect sense once I heard it. This trip was the first time I'd had a chance to try it out and it kept a lot of water out of the boat. So thanks.
Alan
That's a nifty setup, Dave. Thanks for sharing the pictures. I love the simplicity of the pedals. I also like the block epoxied to the hull to get the rudder assy. lowered, which is something I've been wondering about.
Alan
Once this canoe is done and you have another trip under your belt you should seriously consider writing a book combining your building and tripping experiences. I'd buy it. You, sir, are a true admiration to us in the canoe world. I look forward to following this build.
Back to the build.
When building my Nokomis, I was able to get by with 50" width cloth. I'm guessing you will have to go 60" width with the Barren ?
Thanks pblanc for refreshing my memory on Sweet Composites ! They have a lot of choices on S-glass, that I haven't found !
Jim
When building my Nokomis, I was able to get by with 50" width cloth. I'm guessing you will have to go 60" width with the Barren ?
Thanks pblanc for refreshing my memory on Sweet Composites ! They have a lot of choices on S-glass, that I haven't found !
Jim
Alan, have you thought of some type of skeg instead of a full rudder system? My sea kayak has a skeg and is really nice with following seas and is considerable help in other situations. You can't steer with it, but it seems you could build a skeg, either internal or external, that accomplishes some of what you're after with much less weight and hardware.
Mark
Mark
Yes, it's about 55" from gunwale to gunwale.
I have thought about that but having owned kayaks with both skegs and rudders I found the rudder so much more efficient and enjoyable to my preferred type of paddling that it's the way I've got to go despite the extra complication. The rudders ability to hold me on a narrow line and make minor adjustments when traveling upstream in confused currents, allowing me to put all my effort into hard forward strokes with no correction or switching, would be very welcome. Not to mention unlimited strokes per side with no correction on open water.
Alan
Yes, a skeg would be a bad idea for upstream travel, and certainly no help. My friend has a Kruger Seawind and he can paddle all day without switching sides. Which reminds me, he fell and broke a bunch of ribs once on a paddling trip and could only paddle on one side. He would have had to walk out from the south arm of Yellowstone Lake, about 20 miles, if the boat didnt have the rudder.
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2013
- Messages
- 3,356
- Reaction score
- 479
Lol, I can paddle all day on one side w/o the use of a rudder, wind no wind, loaded or empty, rapid or flat... Of course I do use correction strokes... If I'm going up stream, and the water low, I pole if the water is deep I paddle, if the current is to strong and the water to deep to pole, I line/track my boat!! no need for a rudder!!
With a 32 in. wide canoe, I'll second giving the pole a try. It's great fun and makes maneuvering a canoe through rapids a dream. You could leave that new and under used club of a wooden paddle behind. An aluminum pole would only be slightly heaver, and a carbon pole would surely weigh less. Hint hint...
No Title
Three different folding kayaks, all of which I often paddle with single blades. The seats adjust for the increased height required for single-blading, and a short bent-shaft works extremely well. Rudder mandatory, though. The lone boat is a 70's-era Tyne Tandem configured for solo, light enough to portage on interior lakes with a portable yoke, paddled on Lake Superior and in Algonquin this past summer and fall. The other two are Kleppers: Aerius I and II. I love tripping in the Tyne: easy to pack, easy to portage, it likes winding up small creeks and sailing down windy lakes. To begin to really appreciate the genius of this boat, though, I have had to shed orthodox preconceptions about single vs. double-blades, that kayak rudders are crutches used by inept paddlers, and all manner of fashionable, close-minded bullpucky that defines but, inevitably, limits what and how we paddle. I don't need, but definitely want, a boat to replace my ruddered, folding, wood-framed, canvas-skinned Tyne. There's some risk, albeit small, of my outliving her. The pair of folders pictured together won't pull it off, though. Allan, your Barrens boat is going to be an interesting project. Thanks for sharing.
Three different folding kayaks, all of which I often paddle with single blades. The seats adjust for the increased height required for single-blading, and a short bent-shaft works extremely well. Rudder mandatory, though. The lone boat is a 70's-era Tyne Tandem configured for solo, light enough to portage on interior lakes with a portable yoke, paddled on Lake Superior and in Algonquin this past summer and fall. The other two are Kleppers: Aerius I and II. I love tripping in the Tyne: easy to pack, easy to portage, it likes winding up small creeks and sailing down windy lakes. To begin to really appreciate the genius of this boat, though, I have had to shed orthodox preconceptions about single vs. double-blades, that kayak rudders are crutches used by inept paddlers, and all manner of fashionable, close-minded bullpucky that defines but, inevitably, limits what and how we paddle. I don't need, but definitely want, a boat to replace my ruddered, folding, wood-framed, canvas-skinned Tyne. There's some risk, albeit small, of my outliving her. The pair of folders pictured together won't pull it off, though. Allan, your Barrens boat is going to be an interesting project. Thanks for sharing.
Attachments
G
Guest
Guest
I know that I don’t actually need a rudder; I tripped in loaded open canoes on big lakes and open water bays for 20+ years without one.
But when I got the first functional foot controlled rudder installed on one of the early decked canoe refurbishments (1971 Old Town Sockeye) it opened my eyes to what I had been missing.
I do not tackle anything like the upriver travel as Alan does, but the same minor rudder adjustments to hold a narrow line apply equally to paddling in tidal currents, which can be equally tiring and often lack the rest and reset comfort of an eddy. Likewise paddling open water wind and wave without corrective strokes.
The truly orgasmic part of a rudder comes when combined with a small sail. Again, I don’t need a rudder, even under windpower, I spent years holding a paddle blade forcibly implanted in the water behind the seat with makeshift umbrella sails and ponchos.
Even with some gunwale pry that paddle rudder requires both hands and, since it presents the same force held on the paddle with little arm movement or variation, it can get quivering flexor muscle old fast.
The open water ability to make effortless miles with a sail and rudder is for me a huge tripping advantage. I am still paddle stroke durable (less than I once was), but anytime I can make the same speed and hold the same line using only my toes, yeah, I’ll take it.
The biggest advantage of a rudder and hands free sail isn’t flying along on the hiked out verge of catastrophe in high winds (no thanks, that’s a daysailer thing), or even cruising along sans effort at paddling speed. It is the ability to keep making steady miles while doing “housekeeping” chores in the boat.
Shuffle some gear or trim, have a drink or snack, sponge some bilge, wipe up some mud, read the map, grab the monocular for a magnified peek ahead, treat myself to a Chesterfield and a Budweiser (OK, Burley and Bright and a Guinness), write down a trip note or gear idea. Or just sit back and contemplate the world go by.
That contemplation has vastly increased my comprehension of even minor wind effect, discerning breeze riffles on the water, observed evidence of wind shadow and sheer and efficient wind ferry angles have been greatly enhanced by using a small sail and rudder. Where I once bulled my way through it I have become more mindful and aware of the minutia.
Travel over a long day in the saddle can be made much easier and more efficient with a bit of tailwind, a small sail and a rudder.
Alan, a review of the Windpaddle (and other gear and modifications) used on your Wollaston north travels would be tripper appreciated.
Check your e-mail.
Alan, those graphs and diagrams are fascinating. If I were 30 years younger, I might really get interested in this design stuff.
I'm having trouble reconciling some of those diagrams with each other and with your photos. When you have a chance could you list the complete hull specs: LOA, LWL and BWL at load, max beam, gunwale beam, depth at center, bow and stern, rocker at bow and stern, and height at bow and stern.
Barrens stability
Maximum heel force at 30 degrees is not much heel-ability for my style of paddling. I want to feel solid at 45 degrees and maybe even a lot more in a 16' canoe. My MR Explorer is 16' long and I can sit on the gunwale with my feet in the water and it still won't flip. It must be heeled at least 75 degrees at that point. Of course, it's difficult canoe to sit & switch efficiently because it's too wide at center.
Unless that green front profile diagram next to the stability graph is distorted, the tumblehome "shoulder" is limiting the maximum heel force point.
I'd love to have stability graphs in hand for a bunch of actual canoes on the water, so I could get a real world proprioceptive feel for what the graphs mean to my stability preferences.
I'm having trouble reconciling some of those diagrams with each other and with your photos. When you have a chance could you list the complete hull specs: LOA, LWL and BWL at load, max beam, gunwale beam, depth at center, bow and stern, rocker at bow and stern, and height at bow and stern.
Barrens stability Maximum heel force at 30 degrees is not much heel-ability for my style of paddling. I want to feel solid at 45 degrees and maybe even a lot more in a 16' canoe. My MR Explorer is 16' long and I can sit on the gunwale with my feet in the water and it still won't flip. It must be heeled at least 75 degrees at that point. Of course, it's difficult canoe to sit & switch efficiently because it's too wide at center.
Unless that green front profile diagram next to the stability graph is distorted, the tumblehome "shoulder" is limiting the maximum heel force point.
I'd love to have stability graphs in hand for a bunch of actual canoes on the water, so I could get a real world proprioceptive feel for what the graphs mean to my stability preferences.
I'll throw them up sometime tomorrow when I get time.
Keep in mind that this stability chart uses a fixed center of gravity and doesn't take into account a paddler counteracting anything. I use 12" as center of gravity for every hull I run this on. Seems like it would be close to accurate but mostly I think it needs to be a consistent number or it would be very hard to make comparisons between hulls. And comparisons is mostly what I use these stability charts for. Did this design change make it more or less stable? How does it compare to other hulls I've designed and paddled?
Yes, it certainly appears it does. But as a sit and switcher I was unwilling to give it up, especially with a 32" in beam.
You haven't even seen one of the coolest parts. While the stability graph I showed is just the full frontal view it's actually a complete 3D model so I can rotate the canoe to view it at any angle I want and then heel the hull to to any angle and view the waterline. You'd like that as it's easy to see when the stems do, or don't, break free. If you really want to get fancy I believe you can place the load point in different spots rather than just dead center; such as would happen if you shifted your weight forward.
Alan
I know we've talked some about losing efficiency by adding rocker. Is there a point where the efficiency really drops off ?
And if rockering one end or the other makes more, or less of a difference, at least on the computer model ?
My hulls are pretty straight keeled, and so this intrigues me.
Jim
And if rockering one end or the other makes more, or less of a difference, at least on the computer model ?
My hulls are pretty straight keeled, and so this intrigues me.
Jim
