Larger Canoe: Tumblehome or Not

[PaddleTime]

Thanks @Steve in Idaho, I can consider two, but I am just thinking I’ll have my hands full enough car topping one, and am a bit of a minimalist all around so one very much appeals to me, along with keeping the group together. Depends on your definition of close! I’m out west but SW Idaho is a bit of a stretch. Closer than “canoe country” (and a heck of a lot closer than to these manufacturers, not easy to just stop by or to dealers). Hence the research.

 

[ppine]

I have always wanted a Souris River, but never even seen one in person out here in canoe Siberia known as Nevada.

 

[Steve in Idaho]

I have always wanted a Souris River, but never even seen one in person out here in canoe Siberia known as Nevada.

I had to go to Minnesota to see one.

 

[SouthernKevlar]

I've got a Souris River Tranquility solo in my quiver of canoes and used it on my first solo trip into the BWCA. If the construction of their tandems are anything like this canoe they will be one tough boat for the weight.
Another lucky unexpected Craigslist find down here in the South...

 

[Glenn MacGrady]

Hey Glenn, I was referencing just the floor (combined with epoxy) - I think the ones I’ve been able to find in the 18.5’ category (Nighthawk Pegasus with floor option, H2O Outfitter & Prospector with option, Swift Keewaydin w/ epoxy option, Savage River Voyageur) would still have side ribs but with the solid floor.

I think I've got it now, PT. You would like epoxy. You would accept a foam floor with foam ribs extending up the the sides. But you don't want just foam ribs on the floor/sides, which is the the way Souris River constructs a hull to give it more flexibility. That makes structural sense to me because don't like foam in a hull as a general rule, but it may rule out Souris River for you.

H20 and Savage River seem to use foam floors plus ribs, but they are extremely pricey. I doubt that 18.5' models of these canoes are used by outfitters, and am sure that they would appear only rarely on the used market. That is one advantage of Souris River; outfitters use them and sell them off at the end of season.

Swift uses foam floors + ribs, but they don't have any models longer than 17.5' in their current lineup, which is telling about the small market for 18+ canoes. Maybe they would resurrect one of their 18+ models with their new epoxy finish as a custom order. It also would be very pricey.

I've never heard of Nighthawk, and some of the pictures of the Pegasus seem to show ribs-only like a Souris River. However, they say they do custom work, so maybe they would do a full foam floor or (my preference for a composite tripping canoe) no foam at all. If so, they also might have the lowest prices, if you've ruled out Souris River, and you could pick up the canoe in Wisconsin on your way to your trip in lower Ontario.

 

[PaddleTime]

Thanks Glenn. Appreciate your comments. Yes I understand the Keewaydin 18.5 can be made. It seems like a faster type design perhaps like the MNII, but I could be wrong (I’m good with slow and stable). I think H20 comes in a bit more economically if you do the CAD to USD conversion. The Nighthawk can be had with a foam core floor setup or ribs, and you’re right the location is better. Kind of the impetus of this thread: correct me if I’m wrong but I believe the Nighthawk has a more traditional tumblehome. Unfortunately though, not many first hand reviews. So I’m trying to get a handle on just how this type of design would paddle in general, be it fishing, calm, or wind and waves. I think similar to many Wenonah canoes in regards to tumblehome. Others here are the same length / width (or close) but flared or shouldered.

So far, looked back earlier and it seems (perhaps as you might expect!) that opinions are about even here and mixed for those that have chimed in on tumblehome for big lager canoes with 3 paddlers. At this point I’m thinking some tumblehome (not radical) would be a benefit most of the time for paddling ease. But no tumblehome would be advantageous in rougher water, albeit with a possibly rougher ride, and possibly have a small impact on additional cargo space. I’m also curious how a non-shouldered tumblehome affects stability; at this point I am gathering that it could increase stability at first (provided the widest point is out of the water loaded) on a shallow arch but that perhaps there would be less room for error so to speak if you went past that point. But we are just looking to paddle straight across the lake here, no heeling etc. - although how this would play into things on a windy day with waves or fishing and moving about, I am wondering on.

I see you said that for rough water you wouldn’t want a canoe with significant tumblehome - curious how much would you consider significant on the spec sheet? Thanks for the help.

 

[Keeled Over]

What does a stroke feel like?

 

[Glenn MacGrady]

I see you said that for rough water you wouldn’t want a canoe with significant tumblehome - curious how much would you consider significant on the spec sheet? Thanks for the help.

What I meant was simply a general rule that tumblehomed canoes are likely to be somewhat less seaworthy in big waves (i.e., wetter) than straight-sided or flared canoes. That doesn't mean I would choose or prefer a given canoe solely on the basis of side shape or big wave performance. My decision would not be made on specs or appearance, but rather on feel. I would get into the canoe and test its primary and secondary stability, its heel-ability (tip-over point), and other performance characteristics.

I have no spec definition of what "significant" tumblehome is. In general again, I'd say that a tumblehomed canoe is one where the chine (or bilge) width is noticeably greater than the gunwale width, a flared canoe is one where the gunwale width is noticeably the maximum width, and a straight-sided canoe is is one where the chine width and gunwale width are about the same. I own canoes of all three types. Any side profile can be designed into a satisfactorily performing and seaworthy hull.

I simply wouldn't worry at all about the amounts of tumblehome, or not, in any of the canoes you are considering.

But since you will, I'll say a bit more. All the big canoes from established companies such as Swift, Wenonah, Souris River, H20, Northstar, and Savage River have track records as performance trippers—whatever their side profiles, which is only one element of hull design.

The Nighthawk Pegasus, a brand I'd never heard of, doesn't seem to have any significant tumblehome, as defined by chine width vs. gunwale width. The chine width isn't stated but seems to be about the same as the gunwale width of 36".





My educated guess is that the Pegasus has solid primary and secondary stability and would be very seaworthy. You won't be heeling a big canoe like this with three people in it, and I'm confident that you know that inexperienced paddlers (and even experienced paddlers) should not go out in big wind and waves, especially in the remote wilderness.

With a chine width of 29.5"and a gunwale with of 25.5, my Swift Keewaydin 15 has what I'd call significant bubble-sided tumblehome:



I was concerned about the stability and tip-over point of this hull before I bought it, so the seller and I arranged a test paddle. Notwithstanding the significant tumblehome, the hull has good initial and final stability, does not have an early tip-over point, and is seaworthy in waves. That's probably because the tumblehome is brought up high on the sides all the way along the hull.

The Keewaydin 18.5 probably has a similar tumblehome profile, given that its specs are:

• Gunwale width: 32.5 in
• Maximum width: 35.5 in
• Waterline width: 32.5 in

These specs would also confirm your suspicion that the Kee 18.5 is likely to be faster and tippier than the 34" waterlines of the Savage River Voyageur and the two H2Os, and the probably wider yet Souris River Quetico and Nighthawk Pegasus.

Again, I don't think you should be concerned about the side profiles of any of these canoes. Stability and the waterline spec, in addition the the capacity spec, all are more important for three inexperienced adults in a canoe. I also wouldn't be concerned about the resin that is used because I doubt you will abuse the canoe hard enough or long enough to make a difference. But since you will, I think its better to be fascinated by epoxy resin than the alternatives, assuming the epoxy is somehow protected against UV degradation and if you are willing to pay for it.

 

[Steve in Idaho]

What I meant was simply a general rule that tumblehomed canoes are likely to be somewhat less seaworthy in big waves (i.e., wetter) than straight-sided or flared canoes. That doesn't mean I would choose or prefer a given canoe solely on the basis of side shape or big wave performance. My decision would not be made on specs or appearance, but rather on feel. I would get into the canoe and test its primary and secondary stability, its heel-ability (tip-over point), and other performance characteristics.

I have no spec definition of what "significant" tumblehome is. In general again, I'd say that a tumblehomed canoe is one where the chine (or bilge) width is noticeably greater than the gunwale width, a flared canoe is one where the gunwale width is noticeably the maximum width, and a straight-sided canoe is is one where the chine width and gunwale width are about the same. I own canoes of all three types. Any side profile can be designed into a satisfactorily performing and seaworthy hull.

I simply wouldn't worry at all about the amounts of tumblehome, or not, in any of the canoes you are considering.

But since you will, I'll say a bit more. All the big canoes from established companies such as Swift, Wenonah, Souris River, H20, Northstar, and Savage River have track records as performance trippers—whatever their side profiles, which is only one element of hull design.

The Nighthawk Pegasus, a brand I'd never heard of, doesn't seem to have any significant tumblehome, as defined by chine width vs. gunwale width. The chine width isn't stated but seems to be about the same as the gunwale width of 36".

View attachment 145158

View attachment 145155

My educated guess is that the Pegasus has solid primary and secondary stability and would be very seaworthy. You won't be heeling a big canoe like this with three people in it, and I'm confident that you know that inexperienced paddlers (and even experienced paddlers) should not go out in big wind and waves, especially in the remote wilderness.

With a chine width of 29.5"and a gunwale with of 25.5, my Swift Keewaydin 15 has what I'd call significant bubble-sided tumblehome:

View attachment 145157

I was concerned about the stability and tip-over point of this hull before I bought it, so the seller and I arranged a test paddle. Notwithstanding the significant tumblehome, the hull has good initial and final stability, does not have an early tip-over point, and is seaworthy in waves. That's probably because the tumblehome is brought up high on the sides all the way along the hull.

The Keewaydin 18.5 probably has a similar tumblehome profile, given that its specs are:

• Gunwale width: 32.5 in
• Maximum width: 35.5 in
• Waterline width: 32.5 in

These specs would also confirm your suspicion that the Kee 18.5 is likely to be faster and tippier than the 34" waterlines of the Savage River Voyageur and the two H2Os, and the probably wider yet Souris River Quetico and Nighthawk Pegasus.

Again, I don't think you should be concerned about the side profiles of any of these canoes. Stability and the waterline spec, in addition the the capacity spec, all are more important for three inexperienced adults in a canoe. I also wouldn't be concerned about the resin that is used because I doubt you will abuse the canoe hard enough or long enough to make a difference. But since you will, I think its better to be fascinated by epoxy resin than the alternatives, assuming the epoxy is somehow protected against UV degradation and if you are willing to pay for it.

Agree 100%.

 

[PaddleTime]

Soaking up info like a sponge here, much appreciated @Glenn MacGrady. Sounding like we’re talking about some all-arounder canoes here and sounding like any tumblehome on that Nighthawk would be considered minimal…appreciate the photo example, big difference.

Not planning on big wind or waves - I suppose just looking at the maps a lot of these access points start / finish on larger lakes. Perhaps timing is everything in that regard. Thank you for your input, for sharing your experience, and for the advice.

 

[Keeled Over]

Soaking up info like a sponge here, much appreciated @Glenn MacGrady. Sounding like we’re talking about some all-arounder canoes here and sounding like any tumblehome on that Nighthawk would be considered minimal…appreciate the photo example, big difference.

Not planning on big wind or waves - I suppose just looking at the maps a lot of these access points start / finish on larger lakes. Perhaps timing is everything in that regard. Thank you for your input, for sharing your experience, and for the advice.

"Not planning on big wind or waves" Ultimately we can plan (hope) for a lack of big wind or waves, but we are not the final decision maker. At one point in 1989 Bayley Bay and I had a BIG discussion over quite a few hours. Bayley won.

 

[Steve in Idaho]

"Not planning on big wind or waves" Ultimately we can plan (hope) for a lack of big wind or waves, but we are not the final decision maker. At one point in 1989 Bayley Bay and I had a BIG discussion over quite a few hours. Bayley won.

Waterwalker comes to mind again - twice in one morning.

 

[Steve in Idaho]

Maybe I'm repeating myself again, but I can't think of any reason I would want tumblehome on a recreational tandem. And if I had to have a third adult paddling in the middle, I'd most likely want him using a double blade anyway - so tumblehome would be moot. (Yeah - might as well go nuts)

 

[gumpus]

If your maximum load is 670 then I think you want a boat designed to carry at least 700 and preferably 750 like the new Swift. The industry capacity is misleading and not relevant. In my experience some canoes are just fine if slightly overloaded and others start losing stability and handling right around their upper recommended limit. I would not plan to overload a boat...you need a margin. Ideally your load will be in the middle of the recommended range but you'll be fine towards one end or the other but why start at/over the limit?

If you know all of the brands you might consider and look for boats that are designed to handle at least 700 pounds I think you'll narrow down your choice to a small number of boats.

Good luck and happy paddling

 

[ppine]

Nobody plans on big wind or waves but they happen all the time.

 

[PaddleTime]

@Steve in Idaho I think I had previously considered a double bladed paddle for the middle, but then forgot - thanks for bringing that up.

On weight what I’m seeing is for those that are listing a “max weight” or “industry standard weight” we are up over 1000lbs (understood on the caveats with that figure). For max “suggested / optimal / recommended” weights (terminology varies) the lowest I’m seeing is 650. So we might be 20lbs over to start on those. But if I need to rule those out, I can.

That new Lavieille is a bit higher at over 700lbs but only 17.5’ - the gear would fit, and we would fit, although it seems to have less space mostly for the bow paddler than the 18.5’ options. Leaning 18.5’ at this point for all the reasons discussed.

And seeing everything on tumblehome from no need, to it being suggested on a tripping boat, sounds like as long as it’s not too extreme it’s a preference type thing.

 

[Glenn MacGrady]

sounds like as long as it’s not too extreme it’s a preference type thing.

That's a good way to look at it. And if you slightly prefer some non-extreme tumblehome or flare, for example, that preference may be outweighed for your trip application (type of water, weight of load) by some other spec such as capacity, center depth/freeboard, waterline width, stability feel, efficiency & speed, or hull material.

assuming the epoxy is somehow protected against UV degradation

You should inquire about this in your research if you haven't yet.

One reason that epoxy resin is not used by many canoe manufacturers, aside from cost, is that epoxy resin is very sensitive to and degraded by UV light. Therefore, there has to be some sort of UV resistant coating over an epoxy lamination, such as gel coat, varnish, frequent applications of a wipe-on UV protectant like 303, or all of the above. If an epoxy hull is not protected from UV, over the years can become faded, pitted and even cracked by the UV damage to the epoxy matrix.

UV damage is an especial risk if the outer layer of the canoe is aramid (Kevlar, Twaron). Unlike carbon, polyester, basalt and Innegra fibers, which are pretty UV resistant on their own, Kevlar fiber is very susceptible to UV damage. If exposed to sunlight over the years, it will darken and become brittle and weak. This risk will be worse, of course, if an all-Kevlar hull is laminated with epoxy. Both the fiber and the resin will then be susceptible to UV damage. Therefore, such a hull needs to have some sort of chemical protection on top of the laminate, such as a UV resistant gel coat, and also should be kept out of the sun when stored. Colored or clear gel coats can provide UV protection. Swift's newly hyped UV Shield is just a clear gel coat that has apparently been formulated for thin application.

Because gel coats add weight, to save maximum weight some canoe manufacturers will make unpigmented all-Kevlar hulls with "skin coats", which means no gel coat but just some extra resin painted on the outside. These hulls fall into the UV-endangered category, most especially if the resin used is epoxy, as explained above. These canoes are frequently bought by racers, who carefully protect the hulls from sun, often with canoe covers even when car-topped, and by outfitters, who will sell the canoes out of their fleets before they become too damaged by UV (and customer abuse).

If you use an all-Kevlar or epoxy or both kind of hull only infrequently, and keep in inside or properly covered when not in use, then you can minimize the UV degradation risk.

There is no perfect canoe. It's always a balancing act and variable choice between multiple hull specs, which may be more or less relevant, and all depending on the type of water, the skill of the paddler, the size and weight of the paddler, the weight of the expected gear load, the expected abuse in the paddling environment, and—what are often the deciding factors—what's the buyer's budget and what canoes are available on geographical market within that budget.

What I take away so far from what I understand is your situation—three inexperienced adults in the same canoe very far away from home in a Canadian/BWCA/Quetico-type wilderness—are the following three high priority hull requirements: capacity exceeding 700 pounds with a lot of freeboard remaining, at least 18' in length, and solid stability. With three adults and only one canoe, hull weight is not as important as it would be for a solo paddler, especially if there are no or few portages. Two people can carry the canoe, if necessary, while the third helps with the gear.

 

[PaddleTime]

Thanks Glenn. Yep either way plan to keep this out of the sun as much as possible and in storage, and had been thinking of some type of cover for transport as well. Probably only sun exposed when on the water. Skin coat Kevlar has been how I’m leaning. Hopefully, I can get this canoe to last quite a long time+ that way. Hope for cloudy days on trips maybe? Just kidding. Will look into other mitigation options also. Great point on not getting too picky on the pounds with 3 on the trip as well. And yep, I’m seeing how all these canoes are a compromise of some sort. Thanks for the help.

 

[Steve in Idaho]

One of the saddest things I've seen was the SR canoe that I assume was epoxy/kevlar like the others. It was stored under cover, but had decades of frequent use. Looked like it would crumble if you touched it, and I would never get in it. It had lots and lots of miles on it, but still..... gave me pause, when thinking about no-pigment kevlar.

 

[Steve in Idaho]

Thanks Glenn. Yep either way plan to keep this out of the sun as much as possible and in storage, and had been thinking of some type of cover for transport as well. Probably only sun exposed when on the water. Skin coat Kevlar has been how I’m leaning. Hopefully, I can get this canoe to last quite a long time+ that way. Hope for cloudy days on trips maybe? Just kidding. Will look into other mitigation options also. Great point on not getting too picky on the pounds with 3 on the trip as well. And yep, I’m seeing how all these canoes are a compromise of some sort. Thanks for the help.

Another thing about skin coat kevlar....
Kevlar fuzzes when abraded. I very much prefer my non-gelcoated kevlar canoes to have S glass as the outer layer because its more abrasion resistant and adds some stiffness to the hull. That's how my Millbrook Coho is built, and some would say I abuse that boat - yet, it shows nothing worse than a bazillion surface scratches.

Here's another you might want to consider....

18’6 MacKenzie

For unbelievable performance in a large capacity touring canoe, try the 18'6" MacKenzie. Load it up with camping gear, the kids and the dog - and you’re set for a wilderness adventure.

www.clippercanoes.com