Mad River Sunrunner 1994

[mwaalen]

Thanks Grumpus. Yes, definitely having fun with this current obsession. Your boat is stunning and you must be right about the ash as I paid attention to the weight of the yoke yesterday and too light to be oak. Thanks for the tips on the potential of adding weight. From what I have read about varnish vs oil it makes sense that oil be used on components that flex as varnish is rigid and develops hairline fractures that over time allow water in. I plan to dark stain the gunwales and decks and then Exterior Watco them unless they still make Gunwale Guard. Have not looked yet. Is Watco considered an oil? This route seems most consistent with original. For a 10-day trip we carried about 310 lbs of flesh, 35 lb food pack, 45 lb gear pack (which could loose 10 lbs if I can convince myself to leave our rubber boots at home) and a 20 lb backpack with fishing gear, med kit, raingear, etc. If math correct...420 lbs or thereabouts. Still on the fence with what to do...

Thanks for the links and curse you for showing me that kevlar sundance. Anyone want to buy a ceramics kiln, motorcycle, or some nice vintage hifi audio equipment???

 

[gumpus]

Micah, you should keep it and use it! Based on the specs that Mike provided it relatively narrow and as a "stretched Malecite" your planned load is ideal...the boat will be fast, maneuverable, and lightly loaded. Don't worry about the freeboard, you have plenty. There is nothing wrong with fiberglass. You should buy the other boat too. I bet he'd take $500. And yes Watco is considered an oil...they make many products. I recommend the stuff with the green and white label or the teak oil. Both have a good reputation for durability.

 

[Guest]

Also the hanger bolts are all bent just so as to make everything hang perfect & tight.

I have not seen seat hardware custom bent in that fashion before. I presume there is some cant angle to inwales and the bolts are bent only in the area that passes through the gunwale, so they hang vertically below through the peg hangers.

Are those carriage bolts 3 / 16 inch or quarter inch dia? That may make a difference in replacing the seat hangers with trusses (ie, the truss hanger holes would need to accommodate quarter inch hardware).

Completely agreed that plastic end caps are hokey however very practical if this thing will be used as a tripper. Especially being a somewhat heavy boat when propping the nose on the ground to shoulder. That is, if I intend to do so.

A little plastic end cap, like the 3 inch long Vs on some lightweight composite hulls would not look too fugly. The problems are finding such an end cap that has a matching ^ shape for the stem tapers, and that the side shape of the cap may not match the profile of the outwale, leaving a gap that will collect water and debris.

That moisture and debris trap between a plastic deck cap and wood gunwales/deck plates is another other issue, holding water and bacteria causing dirt against the existing wood.

An option is to make a little sacrificial 3 inch long deck cap that is a slightly wider ^ than the outwale edges and top mount that with a couple screws. When/if you prop the nose on ground to shoulder that little piece of wood will bear the brunt of the damage and can be easily replaced.

Thanks for the suggestion on the seat trusses and also the link to Ed's Canoe. I will go cyber shopping sometime soon. The seat hanger pegs do look different at first glance however I believe them to be the same wood as the seat frames, just not varnished

I do prefer full truss hangers, but I am a big guy and find the peg style not stiff enough for my liking. On most of the derelict hulls I have rebuilt the 3 /16 inch machine screws through peg hangers have come out (with wobbly extraction difficulties) bent and not reusable.

If you decide to add full truss hangers from Eds he will need to know the center to center hole spacing so the trusses match the seat frame and inwale holes. If those cunningly bent carriage bolts are quarter inch dia I would be tempted to sand and oil the peg hangers and reuse them.

It is still odd that the seat frames look so well varnished and the peg hangers look 20 years old and raw.

On the underside of the bow deckplate is written the hull ID number so I would imagine these are original. They are just too perfect to have been replaced and this thing has had virtually no use.

If the inset deck plate has a HIN on the bottom it is certainly original. My puzzlement about that was based on an optical illusion from the first photos. It looked (incorrectly) like the deck plate was very thin, almost like a piece of quarter inch lauan, which would doubtful have lasted 20 years.

It is a cool hull, made all the cooler that everything seems to be original.

 

[Guest]

I would be tempted to sand and oil the peg hangers and reuse them.

It is still odd that the seat frames look so well varnished and the peg hangers look 20 years old and raw.

I meant to say sand and varnish (not oil) the peg hangers.

But perhaps therein lies an explanation for the difference in appearance between the nicely varnished seat frame and the toasty looking peg drops.

I have long suspected that those radius edge/flat side seat drop pegs may simply be leftover pieces of gunwale material. Gunwales were oiled at the factory, seats and thwarts were varnished.

If those seat drops were simply oiled 24 years ago before installation and untouched since that would explain the difference in appearance.

Does anyone with experience in mass market canoe manufacturing know if gunwale stock cut offs were/are used for seat drops? A worker could sit with a bucket of gunwale scrap, a drill press and a vise and turn those out by the dozens.

Micah, out of curiosity, how does the shape and dimension of those peg drops compare to a piece of existing gunwale profile?

 

[mwaalen]

I'll look for into some of the most recent dimension questions later this week and get back to every one. Thanks.

 

[mwaalen]

FINISHING: Looked high & low for exterior Watco in the area checking all the big-box stores, local hardware store, boat repair shop, & paint supply however no luck without special ordering a gallon or more. Did purchase a pint of Watco Danish Oil in Dark Walnut as in reading the MR 1994 literature it that is what they used as a for this particular boat. Final stop being Menards where I chose a Minwax Helmsman Indoor/Outdoor Teak Oil which reads to be just the right thing. Sanding went easy enough as the ash certainly is not a hardwood. Used nothing coarser than 100g as there wasn't much to sand out aside from a couple minor paint scrapes. Used a power sander with thick pad to even up the lifted grain on the underside of the gunwales and smooth out the top where the 2 halves met as there was a slight lip in places. While sanding the gunnel tops I started to admire how the natural ash looked and how the grain was enhanced as the wood lightened up in contrast with the darker grain recesses. So changed plans and left the gunwales & handles natural (no Watco Dark Walnut). Probably having lived through the 80's-90's if I never see oak again it will be too soon. Having ash look like ash just seemed more canoe-ish to me. Should also mention that I have always liked a pre-stain to avoid blotching so used BIX Pre-Stain on everything being refinished. For the decks I did want to retain the contrast so brought them back to original using the Watco Dark Walnut also in an effort to blend in the top radiused edge as it had lightened during sanding in taking down the sharp edge a bit. Seat peg drops & seat cane were simply Teak Oiled. All remaining wood components were left as-is as they look new. Will need to re-cane seats this winter which looks easy enough after watching a couple videos. I did purchase a can of spar varnish however decided to return it as the few components that called for it (cane seats & seat peg hangers) I simply oiled as the oil left virtually the same sheen.

SUNDANCE FOR SALE: Currently suffering from OCD (Obsessive Canoe Disorder), I did call on the one mentioned and left a couple messages however no response. Probably a good thing right now. Hopefully one of you guys got it...

ANSWERS: I think you are correct Mike that the seat hangers are bent to accommodate the shape of the hull. I read somewhere (can't find it now) that this is a tumblehome/tucked-shoulder hull design where the top curves in slightly so this makes sense. The fasteners measure 1/4" at the threads but the unthreaded shoulders are a tad shy of that. I worked as a mechanical designer for a number of years and don't recall ever coming across a shoulder bolt with the shoulder being turned down to a lesser diameter than the thread. Can't see the benefit with this application. As of now not planning to do anything different with the seat hangers or frames as they are really tight. I would like to get my hands on the stock end caps to see how they fit in considering your water-trap concern. The '94 catalog speaks of them being available for the kevlar and fiberglass boats so I am thinking they would be form-fit to some degree?? In reading through MR FAQs it mentions Gunwale Guard was used on Gunwales, Handles, Decks, & Seat Spacers. Since used on gunwales this product must've been an oil so my guess is the seat spacers have just weathered differently than the seat frames, yoke, & thwart as the FAQ states those items were spar varnished. You must be right that the seat spacers are leftover gunwale stock as they measure identical with a caliper. Explains the varnish-vs-oil question.

QUESTIONS: Does anyone know if I could use a heat gun (oh-so-carefully) to remove the remaining license sticker from the bow? Would be nice to get some glamor shots prior to mucking it up with a bright red sticker.

I am going to put it all back together today so will send a "finished" photo out later. If the humidity ever drops so the oil can completely dry, I hope to get it out on the water for a test drive yet this fall.

 

[Guest]

As of now not planning to do anything different with the seat hangers or frames as they are really tight.

Well, sand and oil them, yes?

I would like to get my hands on the stock end caps to see how they fit in considering your water-trap concern. The '94 catalog speaks of them being available for the kevlar and fiberglass boats so I am thinking they would be form-fit to some degree??

I wonder if those synthetic end caps mentioned in the catalog were used on MRC’s boats with aluminum or vinyl gunwales. Wood deck plates with wood gunwales, and synthetic deck caps with synthetic gunwales, seems the usual (not always) norm.

In reading through MR FAQs it mentions Gunwale Guard was used on Gunwales, Handles, Decks, & Seat Spacers. Since used on gunwales this product must've been an oil so my guess is the seat spacers have just weathered differently than the seat frames, yoke, & thwart as the FAQ states those items were spar varnished. You must be right that the seat spacers are leftover gunwale stock as they measure identical with a caliper. Explains the varnish-vs-oil question.

Thanks for confirming what I thought; that style seat drop is made from scrap ends of wood gunwales. I looked through a box of old seat hangers after I posted that question and found the same, down to apparently not varnished, only oiled. With custom bent ¼” hardware the original peg drops should be plenty sturdy and I wouldn’t change a thing in that regard.

Gunwale Guard proved to be one of the lesser effective oil treatments in a 4 year exposure test.

http://myccr.com/phpbbforum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=40923

My favorite shop oil is still the DIY concoction of 1/3 boiled linseed oil, 1/3 turpentine and 1/3 varnish (which is itself a mixture of oils and solvents). Plus that DIY mix is dirt cheap, stays liquid in long term storage and is a good use for the dregs of old varnish.

Does anyone know if I could use a heat gun (oh-so-carefully) to remove the remaining license sticker from the bow? Would be nice to get some glamor shots prior to mucking it up with a bright red sticker.

Absolutely. The sticker/hull does not even need to get that hot. It helps to start carefully lifting an edge with a razor blade, and when you have enough lifted pull gently with your fingers. Old really UV degraded stickers will need a razor blade allover and will come off in shreds.

If the sticker has been on for some years of UV exposure the area underneath the sticker will be virgin bright, and look different than the rest of the hull.

I am going to put it all back together today so will send a "finished" photo out later. If the humidity ever drops so the oil can completely dry, I hope to get it out on the water for a test drive yet this fall.

You are going great balls of fire on this refurbishment. I would be weeks thinkering in the shop, and I’m retired.

 

[gumpus]

Awesome progress and enthusiasm Micah! I've also found that some combination of 100/150/220 grit is all you need to refinish or touch up a boat. I can sure relate to leaving the natural wood color too. Just FYI my favorite home brew is 1/3 boiled linseed oil, 1/3 mineral spirits, 1/3 distilled white vinegar and this was once sold as Gunnel Lotion is a local canoe shop. It's super gentle...and that's what is on the Blackhawk in the pic. Could be good that you didn't find the green and white label Watco since that takes about a month or two to dry...I've found the Teak Oil is a nice compromise and dries thoroughly in a day or two. Anyway, your wood looks bone dry and perfect after 25 years so any good oil plus indoor storage and your boat will be happy. You might let the ends of your handles, thwarts, and drops soak in oil overnight...once in their lifetime, and I'd drip some oil down those drops. When I redid the cane on a boat recently I used a kit from Ed's which is a bit pricey but worked great, the wedges were helpful. I don't blame you a bit for going after that other boat since it looks to be a fine boat at a great price.

 

[mwaalen]

Well, it is done enough for now. Planned to take it outside for some glamor shots but this weekend has been absurdly hot and humid. Should not be in the 90's this time of the year in MN however it didn't help that I had my kiln running in the workshop yesterday which went past 2,000F. With that said and in regards to your comment Gumpus on the Watco taking forever to dry, everything is still quite tacky. Thanks to you both on sharing your recipes for home-brew oil as will probably try this next round. As for the finished look, I am satisfied with the colors as the gunwales now match the seat cane and check out the paddle (came with the package deal if you can believe it) it all goes together. But...I can envision it with the seat components, thwart, & yoke matching the gunwales. The winters are long here and the state owes me a property tax refund so??? I'll check out Ed's for the caning and some other wish list items. Check out how precariously close the mounting holes are in the thwart. There is room for it to be longer so maybe I will start with that and go from there. Also note the paddle's edge which speaks to how little use this canoe had.

For a number of reasons this brand and vintage of canoe certainly captures my imagination as a compulsive tinkerer. Definitely a quality craft with the added benefit of well-thought design elements. I anticipate there will be more to come. Thanks so much everyone for sharing this refurb adventure with me. I'll post more on this topic if anything notable takes place.

Peace,
Micah Waalen

 

[gumpus]

Beautiful work Micah! Your boat looks like new or maybe better. Shallow vee hulls have a unique feel in the water and they typically carve turns very gracefully. My little Blackhawk tandem performs well even against modern hulls and I think your boat would just run away from my Blackhawk. Here's the link to the Ed's cane repair kit. Seems weird that it costs $24 when he will sell you a brand new cane seat with frame for $28 but I liked the idea of keeping the factory seat frame on my solo boat.
http://www.edscanoe.com/doityourself.html

 

[mwaalen]

Finally back to this project and rereading prior discussion but more questions as the material lay-up confuses me. The cboats discussion speaks of kevlar airex boats having a raised football-shape on the floor which this does...sort of. See photo. Note the raised section does not follow the paint line however so not pointed ends like a football. Raised none the less. No ribs however.

Could this be some sort of hybrid?

Would a glass lay-up have a raised floor?

Could the raised floor be something other than Airex?

Are we certain Airex was only used on kevlar or hybrid boats?

Do Airex boats always have ribs?

In 94-96 they made KE versions however my 94 catalog does not mention them. Any ideas what they are?

Sorry for the truncated sentences but I am tapping this out on my cursed tablet.

THANKS IN ADVANCE

 

[Guest]

Finally back to this project and rereading prior discussion but more questions as the material lay-up confuses me. The cboats discussion speaks of kevlar airex boats having a raised football-shape on the floor which this does...sort of. See photo. Note the raised section does not follow the paint line however so not pointed ends like a football. Raised none the less. No ribs however.

Some non answers and guesses to questions posed:

Could this be some sort of hybrid?

It could be, although I think Vermont MRC reserved the “Hybrid” KH or KA designation for canoes with “PVC”/”Airex” cores.

Would a glass lay-up have a raised floor?

It could, especially if that raised floor was simply a layup schedule with a partial football of extra cloth. I wish we still had our Vermont era glass Explorer; I think, but am not sure, that it had a slightly raised area within the interior football of scuff paint.

Could the raised floor be something other than Airex?

It could be (see above).

Are we certain Airex was only used on kevlar or hybrid boats?

I am not, although the mix of (heavy) fiberglass and (ultra-light) Airex would seem an odd combination.

Do Airex boats always have ribs?

No idea, but they would likely be needed to help stiffen the Airex core

In 94-96 they made KE versions however my 94 catalog does not mention them. Any ideas what they are?

The KE stood for Kevlar Expedition, a heavier weight kevlar layup.

Vermont MRC seemed consistent in add the “K” or KE” appendage to the HIN, and without that designation the best guess is still a fiberglass layup.


EDIT: The bathroom scale weight still presents a mystery. At 61 lbs it falls oddly in between the listed weights for Fiberglass (67 lbs) and Kevlar (55 lbs). A glass boat is unlikely to weigh 6 lbs less than specs, and a Kevlar lay up might well weigh 6 lbs more than spec, especially a Kevlar Expedition model.

Years ago I weighed a used canoe at a deer check station on their scale. Another possibility is one of these:

https://www.amazon.com/Taylor-Precis...70_&dpSrc=srch

Thanks to Robin for that idea, I have one hanging in my shop and use it often.

 

[mwaalen]

Thanks Mike for the input and I agree many details point to this being a glass boat. Last week I did contact Confluence/MR tech support for PDFs of MR catalogs from '95 - 2000 as I already had the '94. Also asked him for any literature on KE or Airex but I received nothing on these. KE boats are not listed till the 2000 catalog so am wondering if marketing came up with that name to sexy-up the standard KV build?? The "Boats By Year" guide was made at least as late as 2011 so this could make sense.

I just found one error in the "Boats By Year" PDF as it states the only KL Sunrunner was in '94 however all catalogs (94-97) list the KL version. This leads me to wonder about other errors which I can imagine with all the different versions, acronyms, and changing terminology. In 95 they list the 44 lb Kevlar version as a "Kevlar PVC" but then in 96 the 44 pounder is listed as "Kevlar Lightwt".

Here is another twist...In 94-96 the KV versions are listed at 55 lbs however in 97 it jumps to 59 which is just 2 lbs shy of what I measured. Granted my HIIN states '94 but??? Tomorrow I will pick up a different scale & hopefully put this to rest. If I again come up with 60 lbs then who knows.

One last twist...The '97 catalog has nice exploded assembly illustrations of the lay-ups and in simply looking at the boat I would think it most resembles the KH build for three reasons. 1) The FC (Fiberglass Cloth) build does not show the floor being painted with "Protective Surface Paint" like all three of the Kevlar builds do. Mine has paint. 2) The floor just seems to have a "bubble" just like the foam core Kevlar builds show. 3) This one may be a bit of a stretch but...For the KH build, the layer just beneath the outer gelcoat states it is "S Glass" and when I search images for S Glass I see photos of weaves just like what I see with my boat.

Stay tuned...

 

[Guest]

KE boats are not listed till the 2000 catalog so am wondering if marketing came up with that name to sexy-up the standard KV build?? The "Boats By Year" guide was made at least as late as 2011 so this could make sense.

I know that at one time MRC made heavier duty kevlar canoes that weighed more than the standard kevlar version, billed as Kevlar Expedition. That’s not to say that they didn’t stop building the lighter weight kevlar version of that same model and make all of that model kevlar canoe with heavier layups.

I just found one error in the "Boats By Year" PDF as it states the only KL Sunrunner was in '94 however all catalogs (94-97) list the KL version. This leads me to wonder about other errors which I can imagine with all the different versions, acronyms, and changing terminology. In 95 they list the 44 lb Kevlar version as a "Kevlar PVC" but then in 96 the 44 pounder is listed as "Kevlar Lightwt".

MRC did change their acronyms and terminology from time to time, even in the Vermont days, but much more so in the corporate NC and SC builds. Carolinas MRC simply changed the names of many models, adding “Freedom XYZ” or “Express XYZ”, a corporate decision that made things really confusing for a buyer looking for a tried and true canoe with a proven heritage.

“Kevlar PVC” sounds awful, like a canoe built with plastic plumbing pipe, “Kevlar Lightweight” sounds much better.

Here is another twist...In 94-96 the KV versions are listed at 55 lbs however in 97 it jumps to 59 which is just 2 lbs shy of what I measured. Granted my HIIN states '94 but??? Tomorrow I will pick up a different scale & hopefully put this to rest. If I again come up with 60 lbs then who knows.

The listed weighs are supposedly the averaged weights of that particular model in that lay up. Presuming that changes may have been made from year to year in the lay up schedule, adding cloth partials to heavy wear areas, could easily account for the weight variance.

About the HIN; while MRC seems to have consistently added “K” appendages to the end of the HIN to designate kevlar canoes they could certainly have overlooked that appendage on some boats.

DougD had an old Ranger canoe on which half of the HIN letters were stamped upside down. Hello Friday afternoon build. WillDerness bought a near pristine used MRC Legend, complete with Legend badging, that turned out to be a Mad River Horizon with the wrong labels applied. Stuff happens.

One last twist...The '97 catalog has nice exploded assembly illustrations of the lay-ups and in simply looking at the boat I would think it most resembles the KH build for three reasons. 1) The FC (Fiberglass Cloth) build does not show the floor being painted with "Protective Surface Paint" like all three of the Kevlar builds do. Mine has paint. 2) The floor just seems to have a "bubble" just like the foam core Kevlar builds show. 3) This one may be a bit of a stretch but...For the KH build, the layer just beneath the outer gelcoat states it is "S Glass" and when I search images for S Glass I see photos of weaves just like what I see with my boat.

1 and 2. Our fiberglass Explorer definitely had a painted scuff area, and may have had a slightly raised area inside that painted football.

3. I believe, but do not know for certain, that MRC made some kevlar canoes solely out of kevlar, which I think not the best idea. A layer or two of S-glass on the outside, under the gel coat, would be superior in terms of scraping and gouging non-fuzzy durability.

When I get a look at the old glass Explorer, with is still owned in my area, with the painted scuff football I will verify if it in fact has a raised area on the floor. And I will be interested in the tale of the more accurate scale.

BTW, I checked the accuracy of the Taylor hanging scale I have by hanging a large carboy of water from the hook. Mine was right on, but you can adjust or tear the scale by turning the top hook.

 

[mwaalen]

Contemplated buying a different scale but didn't want to run into town, nor spend the money. Instead got the bathroom scale out again and weighed myself and then me with shouldered canoe and did the math. Figured this was good as anything even if the scale is off 5 lbs being the weight difference should be more-or-less accurate. For the prior weight attempt I simply held the canoe on my haunches but in thinking over this method I can imagine how that arrangement could've registered a lighter weight given I was somewhat off balance. Having the weight directly above the scale is more sensible. 68 lbs...Must be glass.

The more I read about glass canoes the more I understand their benefits as in rigidity, sharper entry points (efficiency), and lighter than Royalex which I wouldn't have guessed. I would imagine a well-built glass canoe such as this will not oil-can and am wondering if typical kevlar ultralights do? Probably depends on ribs, etc. Ultimately I would love to take this boat on a trip and trying to justify the additional portage weight assuming paddling efficiency gains.

On our most recent trip we did 120km/75mi in 6.5 days of moving. Two atypical layover days not counted. In those 6.5 days we logged 30 total portages for a total of 10,350M which is just shy of 6.5 miles with none of it being flat or easy. Three of the days we logged over 2,000M. At least 3 jaunts were in the 900M realm. I generally carry the canoe along with the 20lb daypack which I can probably drop 5lbs of fishing gear out of. This was done with a 42lb ultralight and I don't remember stopping for a breather on any of the portages which is preferred as it takes energy to drop the canoe & re-shoulder it. As far as paddling, we did 18.5km/day average with at least 2 days at 20km. Paddled darn hard at times with big water, wind, & a couple frantic evenings searching for a site.

WIth that all said I am going to work towards lightening our overall load & try to get a handle on paddling efficiency gains with this boat vs the We-no-nah Boundary Waters Ultralight we took last as the trip is fresh in my mind. Maybe you have insight on this? Am also going to put out the feelers for more MR boats of this vintage in hopes of scoring another as MN is a good place for this and I have an untapped, affluent source in mind...Good to know your glass Explorer had a painted floor. The photos attached are from the '97 catalog. They can answer some of my/our confusion. May add a bit more too.

 

[mwaalen]

CORRECTION: In thinking through the details of our last trip it occured to me that on the longer portages (400M & up) I was not carrying the 20 lb day pack along with the canoe. Generally my son would carry that with the food pack and then we did a return trip for the main gear pack. For whatever it's worth figured I'd better clear this up as to not to calculate this all out under false premise.

 

[Guest]

For the prior weight attempt I simply held the canoe on my haunches but in thinking over this method I can imagine how that arrangement could've registered a lighter weight given I was somewhat off balance. Having the weight directly above the scale is more sensible. 68 lbs...Must be glass.

Before I had a hanging scale I used the bathroom scale and found that how I held the boat while standing on the scale made a difference. Even holding it balanced under the yoke could produce a half pound difference between weighings, holding it at waist level could result in a couple pounds variance between repeated weighings. I guess bathroom scale aren’t designed for something with a 16 foot long belly or head.

The more I read about glass canoes the more I understand their benefits as in rigidity, sharper entry points (efficiency), and lighter than Royalex which I wouldn't have guessed. I would imagine a well-built glass canoe such as this will not oil-can and am wondering if typical kevlar ultralights do? Probably depends on ribs, etc. Ultimately I would love to take this boat on a trip and trying to justify the additional portage weight assuming paddling efficiency gains.

Composite canoes usually have sharper stems, and a Vermont made glass MRC should not oil can as Royalex sometimes does. The vee bottom of MRC boats helps in that regard as well, as opposed to a flat bottom or shallow arch canoe. Depending on the bottom shape some UL canoes do oil can a bit and other materials were infamous for oil canning (poly boats, early Twin-tex hull).

Vermont made MRC glass boats have a deserved reputation for being tough and well constructed.

On our most recent trip we did 120km/75mi in 6.5 days of moving. Two atypical layover days not counted. In those 6.5 days we logged 30 total portages for a total of 10,350M which is just shy of 6.5 miles with none of it being flat or easy.

I would not want to carry a 68 lb canoe further than my roof racks to the water’s edge. Your knees and back may vary. For now.

My lake trips might involve a single short portage, or more often none at all. As such I am sometimes paddling on lakes large enough to move camp a time or two and day paddle/explore on layover days.

Which means large, often windy, lakes. Large windy lakes with rocky shorelines. That does not produce easy conditions for launching and landing, loading and unloading. When I look at the damage done to our boats a lot of the scrapes, gouges and dings (and one cracked hull on a UL canoe) come from struggling on rocky shorelines in the wind.

I would much rather have a stoutly built glass canoe than a ultra-light composite in those launching and loading challenges. To say nothing of subjecting a new technologies and materials $3000 hull to that abuse. Egads!

WIth that all said I am going to work towards lightening our overall load & try to get a handle on paddling efficiency gains with this boat vs the We-no-nah Boundary Waters Ultralight we took last as the trip is fresh in my mind. Maybe you have insight on this?

BWAHAHA! I am the last person to speak about lightening the load. If you want to add 50 lbs of creature comforts I’m your guy.

Paddling efficiency means some seat time in different conditions (flat, windy, choppy, etc) with different strokes, and some practiced coordination between bow and stern. Straight blade, bent shaft, what length? Still lots to discover about that canoe.

Am also going to put out the feelers for more MR boats of this vintage in hopes of scoring another as MN is a good place for this and I have an untapped, affluent source in mind.

The right number of canoes is just one more. If you turn up a lighter weight boat more suitable for portaging I’d still keep the Sunrunner. It is a Vermont MRC boat, so probably very well constructed, and a bit of a rarity/curiosity.

I am trying to avoid terming that 25 year old near pristine canoe a, gulp, “beater”, but

Recently picked this beauty up for a song.

For rocky shore trips or yanking over beaver dams I’d take the stout glass Sunrunner over a UL canoe any day. Especially any composite with a foam core.

 

[mwaalen]

Agreed on the weighing difficulties but I have been to Wisconsin a time or two and have seen individuals in bars sporting Sheboygan Goiters that must've been darn close to a 16ft cantilever. I bet the scale lies to them too.

Great point on the shallow V adding efficiencies. In just envisioning the mechanics/physics it makes perfect sense.

That 68lbs scares me a bit as I age but if we can paddle a hypothetical 30% faster than what I am used to (expending less energy) then slowing up the portages with needed breaks may be the trade off.

The vast majority of the portages we encounter in Quetico are rocky but we generally sacrifice our paddles, feet, & shins. Thanks for your insight on the overall durability of this boat. I assume, as with any manufacturers of anything, they wouldn't invest in new technologies (in this case kevlar) and then market it as a less durable option.