What Works / What Don't

[beekeeper]

Joey, I take it you have no issues with the V bottom, or do the benefits out weigh any draw backs.
Jack, I'm sure those are great boats and perform many task well. Had I built one as my first build I may not have bothered building anything else. I am looking for a boat that is more task specific. I bet those boats are great touring and camping craft, but that is not what I do. My last boat would not be the best choice for those tasks.
I would like the opportunity to try some different designs. If others were interested we may could do this at a rendezvous.

beekeeper

 

[JEM]

Joey, I guess you and I are the only ones thinking we might could improve our boats.

I couldn't disagree more.




.

 

[beekeeper]

Joey, I guess you and I are the only ones thinking we might could improve our boats.

I couldn't disagree more.




.

I should have said we were the only ones posting about it. No offense intended.

beekeeper

 

[JEM]

No offense taken on my part. It just sounds like you don't believe/accept others like their boats and that puzzles me.

I applaud your efforts to design and build your own.

 

[jdupre']

Bee, I don't see any down side to the V bottom. It doesn't seem to bottom out any more than the flat bottom of the pirogue in the places I go. I've been in some mighty thin water in both. I figure if you get yourself in a situation where an inch of draft makes a big difference, you might want to back out and re-assses the situation.

The kayak that piper gave me DID have a serious V bottom....... 3" in the 16" distance between the chines. I was so busy trying to keep the thing upright, I didn't notice anything about the V.

Improvement------------------------Historically, people built tools, weapons, homes, etc. according to their needs. If they built something and it worked............no more experimenting. When you're scratching for a living, good enough is "good enough". If you like boats but don't LOVE boats, one that gets the job done is good enough.................no more experimenting.

Joey

 

[Kayak Jack]

There's a concept called "Satisficed". It's kind of like - being satisfied with something that is sufficient - it suffices and is satisfactory. Close enuff fer guvmint werk.

 

[tx river rat]

I am not just satisfied I am ecstatic over the NW and so for havent been around any yaks that even come close to her performance so what do you shoot for?

Maybe I need to go back and add this note, after building 15 boats ,Matts Northwind does it all for me ,camping , touring , fishing . It is the best boat for my all around needs.
The Ugly Duck is the fastest boat I own ,20 inches wide at the bottom and still plenty stable.
The good ole T_V over a thousand miles on her and the best boat I owned until I built the NW.
Bee
A few things to think about.
Things that effect speed ,bottom width, water line width , length of water line ,rocker.bottom configuration
These same things also have a major impact on the stability of a boat
Bottom width you found out about on this last build by rounding the bottom corner of your boat you actually lost a couple inches in width ,doing that decreased your initial stability and didnt change your secondary stability. I know you like a pretty good angle on your sides but that is also costing you speed . What ever you are drafting with 400 lbs in the boat (water line loaded) is your real bottom measurement so you are really several inches wider than you think.It helps secondary stability.A square stern shortened your length and your water line both hurt speed and stability.
and turbulance is also a factor.
Before you take the above wrong let me say that your boats are great and I am not being criticle of them.
Flat bottom boats ( perows ) are great boats but there design excels in some things and dont do as well in others.
To get the increase in performance you will have to start making some choice and blend some designs together ,longer and thinner to a point can give you more speed with the same stability, going to a slight v will help tracking and speed.
What I am trying to say is you are going to have to step outside the typical perow style to get much better performance than you have.
Look at Matts T-V 15 32 in my judgement that design will come about as close as you can get to what you are wanting ,I have paddled one and it is stable reasonable fast and handles a
load and handles well.
Ron

 

[oldsparkey]

No offense taken on my part. It just sounds like you don't believe/accept others like their boats and that puzzles me.

I applaud your efforts to design and build your own.

After building a lot of boats and diffident types of them.........There are two that I would never get rid of but plan on keeping for my use.

I am really happy with the Uncle John Pirogue since it is a great swamp boat for the water I enjoy paddling it in.
As far as a general purpose boat which will go anywhere and do anything ( From calm water to rough water ) for me it is the 14 foot Sasquatch Canoe from JEM Watercraft. Matt has designed a great canoe that I plan on having for a long time.

The only reason for me to build another boat is to build a tandem Sasquatch for the kids since they want a canoe and a 16 foot ( or longer) Sasquatch would be nice for them and my Grandson to have and use.

Chuck.....

 

[JEM]

Flat bottoms are great for displacement and are easy to build. A couple things to keep in mind for paddle craft:

-If you have to add a runner to the hull bottom to help with tracking, then you just increased your hull draft an amount equal to the height of the runner. This can be solved with a rudder.

-Flat bottoms typically create a hard chine. Hard chines tend to grab rocks and get pushed by strong currents. This can help with hard turning but that typically only works with a hull that a paddler is braced into with hip pads, a deck, and foot braces. If where you paddle doesn't have strong currents, then this is a non-issue.

-Flat bottoms tend not to stay flat. If wide, they tend to bow in without additional internal bracing leading to a heavier boat. Tough to get around this one. Every boat is a trade off.

-Flat bottom provide the best (lowest) draft for shallow water. In my experience, getting the correct payload target is what truly makes a great paddle craft. Flat bottoms provide the smallest payload range. The ideal range of weight on board might be 40 pounds instead of 70 pounds for a different style hull (those numbers are just randoms). If you load the hull too light and you float very high, the boat tends to feel unstable even with a flared side wall. This is true for any paddle craft but having more range to work with helps for multiple paddling environments. This becomes less of an issue if hull is wider but paddle craft are narrow by comparison.

Now all that being said, if you enjoy the process of tinkering or building by hand and eye, flat bottoms are a great way to go. You can flex, shift, and tweak before glassing it to see how the hull changes. You can't do that with multi-chined hull or wood strip. They are a great way to experiment and zero in on what you want. That amount of satisfaction cannot be replaced. Been there, done that. It's a lot of fun.

I mistook what was said about no one wanting to contribute to improving what they had. My mistake.

I could add lots to what I'd like to improve with some of my designs but my ideas are based on software so I'm afraid I'd muddy a good thread conversation.

 

[Kayak Jack]

<SNIP>If you load the hull too light and you float very high, the boat tends to feel unstable <SNIP>

Well there, J.D., maybe that's your problem? :wink: Just kidding.
Thanks for blowing some fog off the playing field, Matt. Ron had some meaningful comments too.

 

[seedtick]

Beekeeper came by this morning to help Friend Keith and I put together a 100 year old sugar cane mill - but that's a whole 'nother story

The side discussion turned to displacement, flare, wetted area, stability, ease of paddling

Really what we were wanting to compare was the effects of side flare on other properties. While we speculated, i figured it was time to put together some hard numbers and throw them out for speculation amongst the forum members that worry incremental changes.

Short of trying to do some sort of integral calculus that I have no idea how to do anymore, I decided to take a 1" thick cross section at the center of two pirogues.

Here's what I came up with:

Pirogue A, B
side flare, degrees 35, 15
bottom width 24", 24"

with the same load on this cross section

vertical displacement, inches 4.6, 4.9
waterline beam, inches 30.4, 26.6
wetted perimeter, inches 35.2, 34.2

Now as expected the wider flared pirogue floated higher and had a wider waterline beam- it's made for loads and stability. What surprised me was that the wetted area was so similar, does this mean that there's not that much difference in paddling efficiency?

 

[JEM]

Beekeeper came by this morning to help Friend Keith and I put together a 100 year old sugar cane mill - but that's a whole 'nother story

The side discussion turned to displacement, flare, wetted area, stability, ease of paddling

Really what we were wanting to compare was the effects of side flare on other properties. While we speculated, i figured it was time to put together some hard numbers and throw them out for speculation amongst the forum members that worry incremental changes.

Short of trying to do some sort of integral calculus that I have no idea how to do anymore, I decided to take a 1" thick cross section at the center of two pirogues.

Here's what I came up with:

Pirogue A, B
side flare, degrees 35, 15
bottom width 24", 24"

with the same load on this cross section

vertical displacement, inches 4.6, 4.9
waterline beam, inches 30.4, 26.6
wetted perimeter, inches 35.2, 34.2

Now as expected the wider flared pirogue floated higher and had a wider waterline beam- it's made for loads and stability. What surprised me was that the wetted area was so similar, does this mean that there's not that much difference in paddling efficiency?

Without verifying the wetted surface estimates...

If both hulls have a vertical side height of 10", the one with a 35 flare has a ~38" compared to a ~29" beam. Just by that, the 38" is going to be harder to move efficiently with a paddle.

 

[seedtick]

you're right, however, by the time i bury the wide flare 10" in the water, I'm carrying at lot more weight than when I've buried the narrow flare 10" in the water

that's apples and oranges

my comparison was with the same weight in both pirogues and, barring any mistakes I may have made, they have a very similar wetted area

 

[JEM]

But you can't ignore the ease of paddling. Otherwise might as well put 45 degree flare on it.

I'm guessing you're assuming the hulls are the same length and have the same rake at the bows and the only diff between the two is how wide the flare goes at midship. In that case, the 35 degree flare only gains you ~12% more sinking it 10" in the water. But no one in their right mind would sink a paddle craft that deep in the water. At 6", it's only a ~9% gain.

Increasing flare (assuming the hull lengths are the same with the same rake at the bow) will help secondary stability but not much else and it will be harder to paddle.

 

[seedtick]

That's the question, with both boats having the same load, the wetted area seems to be very similar (within 3%)

shouldn't the ease of paddling be essentially the same?

BTW I've seen pirogues with a 55 degree flare, fellow said that's the way they built them in his family. You'd think if they were that hard to paddle, they would have changed the flare. I've posted this pic before but try this load in a low flare 14 footer

your ciphering and mine are a bit different, i show a 17% gain at 10" and a ~10% gain at 6" - but that's close enough

the original question is if they have the same wetted area, will there be that much difference in ease of paddling?

 

[JEM]

That's the question, with both boats having the same load, the wetted area seems to be very similar (within 3%)

shouldn't the ease of paddling be essentially the same?

BTW I've seen pirogues with a 55 degree flare, fellow said that's the way they built them in his family. You'd think if they were that hard to paddle, they would have changed the flare. I've posted this pic before but try this load in a low flare 14 footer




your ciphering and mine are a bit different, i show a 17% gain at 10" and a ~10% gain at 6" - but that's close enough

the original question is if they have the same wetted area, will there be that much difference in ease of paddling?

If all other things are the same, it would be close.

But a paddler having to shift their weight to reach out an additional 5" to stroke is not the same. It's not even close to them same. The hull with more beam will not be as easy to paddle, keep straight, or turn. It will be more taxing on the paddler.

Even with your picture, put the tumblehome at the 6" waterline on both, one hull is 34 vs 27. The 34" one will still be harder to paddle efficiently as compared to the 27" beam.

 

[jdupre']

Seedtick, it's hard to overcome that 4" extra beam width. That's 4 more inches of water volume to move out of the way. The sides are longer for a given overall length............more hull in contact with the water. Bottom line....... if you paddle Pirogue A and B with the same amount of effort, you're probably talking a tenth of a MPH difference. I found out early on............ let the boat tell you what speed it wants to go. Trying to go 10% faster costs you more than 10% in effort.

Joey

 

[tx river rat]

Folks on here know I am a speed freak or at least a ease of paddling one (effecincy).
After building 6 different perows with different angles. I can make this statement from experience, the boats you mentioned want paddle anywhere close to the same , in speed,ease of paddling . Now I am not talking numbers I am talking getting in the boat and paddling it with a gps..
The wetted area being pretty close comes from the flare just being very pronounce in the center area of the boat, sort of like a pregnant women :lol: but you have increased your beam in that location plus the smoother the water can slide around the hull the better it will paddle humps dont help that.
Seed the picture you posted tells it all ,they didnt put those tumble holmes on there for looks they were put on there because a wide flare boat doesnt paddle easily.
The paddling effeminacy goes way up the closer to the boat you paddle and parrellel with the boat. Having to reach out does several thing that are all wrong ,one it is a sweep which turns your boat on every stroke , the second it makes you arm paddle which tires you faster and has a much better chance at injuring yourself.
Go look at the racing perows they have down there they have very little flare
Ron

 

[tx river rat]

This boat is 15 ft + 20 inches wide and at the time I weighed 220 and had over 200 lbs of gear in her, paddled down 7 miles and back up seven miles against a 3000 cu ft a sec flow. There were nine boats and she was leading the pack most of the time.
So dont think a boat with very little flare want pack weight ,.

Ron

 

[seedtick]

Matt, it took us a half dozen posts to finally agree that all things being equal, there's not much difference. Don't worry about the paddler reaching over the wide beam. Folks i know do'nt paddle from the center of the boat. I usually back up so my short arms are comfortable. In fact, if i have enough load to balance out, i sit on the breasthook


Joey, i agree with your bottom line - most folks can't tell if they're going 3 mph or 3.1 mph

Ron, i'm in no place to argue with your experience. I don't know what side flares you have paddled but i can't tell the difference between a 35 and a 25 flare. Don't know anybody that has a 15 or less flare but you seem to be going for a boat with no flare as the optimum. Look at the picture again, he's not paddling in the center, he's at the back so sweeps and reaching doesn't come into play

I've on here too long already so i'm fixing to go, be interesting to hear other's input and experience on more flare/less flare