Keels: Yeah or Nay?

[Glenn MacGrady]

Do you like or dislike or feel neutral about keels on wood/canvas canoes? Why? Does it depend on circumstances? What?

I haven't particularly liked them on the three canoes I've had. My paddling skills are more than sufficient to keep any keelless canoe going straight, and a keel limits maneuverability unless you heel the canoe off the keel. There are two things I'll say in a keel's favor. It helps a little to keep a canoe from windcocking and leecocking in winds, and it helps to protect the bottom of the canoe from some bottom bumps and scratches.

 

[recped]

They have a place on a w/c canoe, for composite or plastic boats.....no thanks!

 

[Alan Gage]

I have no problem with keels..... as long as they're on someone else's canoe.

Actually I have very little experience with keeled canoes. Just the aluminum tandems I used as a kid. They were never really a problem on our sluggish rivers and little lakes but since graduating to nicer hulls I've never found myself wishing I had a keel.

Alan

 

[Bob B.]

My limited experience with keels is that they do nothing for paddling performance. Possibly May strengthen the hull or make for ease of construction?

When wilderness tripping I have found keels to stick to underwater logs or rocks where other smooth bottom shallow arch canoes often act much more slippery and glide off those objects much more easily.

Bob.

 

[stevet]

Perhaps Benson will chime in but I have always understood that keels on w/c hulls were for protection not directional aid. Could there also be a structural strength component? The three I have had did not have keels…one was a redone OT and two were more modern Loon Works boats.

 

[Sweetfancymoses]

I'm in the Nay-camp. My W/C Otca with a keel leaks. No wonder with the dozen of screws through the canvas holding the cursed thing.

On my Carlton, a previous owner removed it when he or she recanvassed it (Thank you!).

My BlueSteel Bobs Special has a shoe keel which has been beaten up by the rocks something fierce. It doesn't seem to have significantly more layers of fabric to take the punishment which makes it worthless.

A keel will protect the hull unless the rock hits it anywhere outside the one inch strip which is more likely than not.

"Directional aid" is a red herring as it would make it harder to turn if turning is the direction you want to take.

 

[Gamma1214]

"Nay" for me. Like Alan, the only experience I have with keeled boats are the aluminum Grummans of my youth & I cannot imagine adding one to my strippers. Besides, the keel would likely catch on roots & rocks when I drag the canoe through the woods (yep, it happens)

 

[scoutergriz]

I've cut my fleet down to one keeled, and one rounded bottom boat- the keeled canoe is basically only for fishing with a motor hanging off the side because the keel adds a huge amount of resistance to the turning effect of the prop, it has the same effect without the motor which makes it feel like you're trying to turn a tractor trailer in 6" of mud...

 

[lowangle al]

I vote no keel. I don't plan on replacing the keel when I redo the canvas on my 18' OT Guide. To me , the most noticeable thing about a keel is that it makes it much harder to slide the boat out of or into the water. It's also a potential leak spot.

I do think a keel affects a boats performance. On the negative side, while poling from the stern in whitewater, with probably a third of the hull out of the water I could still feel the current "grab" the hull and push it to the side. It also increases the resistance from the water when trying to turn the boat. On the positive side, it helps a boat track better. While most of us don't need a keel to go straight, it helps when you put your paddle down. It gives you a little more time between strokes for things like photography or fishing before you need to get your paddle in the water again.

So for me with my OT, it may loose some of what the old catalogs refer to it as a "very well behaved canoe." It may not be as good for fishing as it was with a keel but my priority is to enjoy the paddle rather than catch as many fish as possible. If catching fish was my priority I'd probably stick with the keel.

 

[Benson Gray]

Perhaps Benson will chime in

Keel questions often seem like a religious topic for many people so I generally avoid the subject. I'm basicly agnostic on this issue and own canoes with and without keels. This question comes up regularly in the WCHA forums (https://forums.wcha.org/) if anyone is looking for more opinions. The short summary is that keels can be some help if you expect to be hauling a canoe up on a dock alone, sliding over big exposed logs in a small stream, sailing, or learning the "J" stroke. They also provide a bit of extra strength to the hull. The down sides are that keel screws occasionally leak in old canoes, keels add weight, and can make quick turns more difficult. The leak issues can be resolved by replacing the bedding compound. An experienced paddler can usually handle a canoe with or without a keel. Removing a keel from a canoe that was originally built with one raises an additional question about the holes in the ribs from the keel screws. These can be filled with wooden plugs, cut off screw heads can be glued in, or they can simply be ignored. All of these things come down to personal preferences in my experience.

Benson

 

[JohnSand]

I own one with, one without. They're different hull shapes, so not really comparable. I don't run rocky rivers, and don't plan to remove the one keel.

 

[yknpdlr]

My old original Grumman has the standard aluminum keel, of course, which is there only to fasten each half of the aluminum hull shells together. When I paddled that canoe (rare to never now), the keel often caught on rocks or logs in a most disagreeable manner. None of my other much higher performance modern composite or woodstrip canoes have any sort of keel protrusion (nor any skid plate for that matter). None is needed for straight tracking. If I had an antique canoe, I don't think I would object to having an original design type of keel, just to keep it historically and factually accurate.

 

[jdeerfoot]

The only time I found keels to be really useful was when I car topped 3 canoes with the bottom 2 being Grummans. The third canoe rested on top of the Grummans on 2x4’s notched to fit over the keels. This made for a secure rack. Too bad I probably way over stressed the transmission in my Dodge Caravan on that 800+ mile trip. Traded that car in due transmission problems 6 or so months later.

 

[Glenn MacGrady]

To me , the most noticeable thing about a keel is that it makes it much harder to slide the boat out of or into the water.

keels can be some help if you expect to be hauling a canoe up on a dock alone, sliding over big exposed logs in a small stream

These two observations may seem contradictory but I don't think they are.

If you are sliding your canoe along the ground—in or out of the water or when "portaging"—the entire bottom of your canoe is probably creating friction and the keel is sort of digging in and creating more friction. However, if you are just sliding the canoe over a flat, hard object like a dock edge, a log or on/off a trailer cross-arm, then you can balance the canoe so it only has to slide along the 1" keel, which will create minimal friction.

 

[Robin]

I have owned a Chestnut Pal and a Chum which both came out of the factory with keels but I went keel-less when I replaced the canvas. I guess Chestnut considered them “cottage “ canoes, built for recreational purposes vs. the Prospectors and Cruisers which where used for more robust conditions, which came without a keel unless special ordered.
Schuyler Thomson usually tried to talk the owners of canoes he restored into deleting the keel, he hated creating holes in a new canvas.

 

[Glenn MacGrady]

This question comes up regularly in the WCHA forums

Folks who are w/c canoe builders, restorers or collectors are likely to prefer keels simply because they were part of the original canoe or are part of the original w/c tradition. Historicity and aesthetics are definitely valid and often strong factors in canoe (and gear) preferences.

I am more interested in having a functional canoe, one that conforms to my paddling style and performance preferences. If I were having a wood/canvas canoe built or restored for myself, I would definitely go keelless. Buying on the used market, you have to take what's available.

 

[ppine]

I hate keels. They provide some protection for wood and canvas boats. I took mine off.

 

[stripperguy]

I only have a very short, deep keel on one of my boats, but that’s a sailboat. Some would call it a centerboard.
Keels on a canoe? A hull designed to go straight doesn’t. need one. A canoe designs for turning shouldn’t have one.
A keel on a hull that needs one, due to manufacturing issues, sure. Boomalum canoes, some w/C’s need them.
Modern hulls? No need.

 

[Sdrew22]

I'm a fan. I paddle W/C canoes and like the extra protection. Especially on rocky Adirondack waterways. I suppose as I get older I will ditch the to save weight.

 

[MrPoling]

Keels have always seemed like a vestigial growth to me. But I acknowledge in some cases they may help protect the bottom.

The problem with canoe keels is they are in the wrong location and orientation to increase tracking. Rudders are skinny, deep, and go on the end of the boat. Keels on most high performance sailboats are skinny, deep, and in the middle.

However, the keel is kind of in the right orientation to prevent rotation of the hull. My shallow v Mad Rivers feel more stable than corresponding shallow arches. I wonder if w/c canoes feel more stable because of the keel?