seedtick said:
No, we don't agree. There's a big difference with regard to ease of paddling a wider boat.
What Works / What Don't
- Thread starter beekeeper
- Start date
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
No, we don't agree. There's a big difference with regard to ease of paddling a wider boat.
Seed
He is in the back paddling just like I would be if I had 2 other folks in the boat and was using a single blade paddle, now that wasnt what we were talking about ,so I am going to throw the orange out and get back to the apple ,Bee is sitting in the center section of the boat with a double paddle just as that man would be if he was in an empty boat by himself.
The boat I put the picture up off was my best performing 3 panel or perow and with very little flare it will still carry a lot of weight.
I am going to ask you a straight up question, in a three panel with the same rocker and length
and depth ,which is faster or more effecient , a boat with a 38 inch width at the water line or a boat that is 28 inches at the water line.
Can you paddle that 38 inch wide boat as well as the narrow one when you are sitting where the center of buoyancy is at its best.
Can you paddle it straight with as much ease
is the most efferent stroke as close to center and parrell with the side of a boat
I think everyone here knows the answers to all these questions if they are answered straight up without throwing in the oranges pears and grapfruits to muddy the water.
Ron
I knew some folks that drank a quart of whiskey every day for the 30 years I knew them now you would think they would figure out that wasnt the best thing to do ,but they never did. Thats the same way I feel about the folks building the wide flair boats ,just because they did it doesnt make it right.
A wide flair boat does not paddle as easy as a narrower boat in the dimensions and usage talked about here so just like Matt I disagree with you on that.
He is in the back paddling just like I would be if I had 2 other folks in the boat and was using a single blade paddle, now that wasnt what we were talking about ,so I am going to throw the orange out and get back to the apple ,Bee is sitting in the center section of the boat with a double paddle just as that man would be if he was in an empty boat by himself.
The boat I put the picture up off was my best performing 3 panel or perow and with very little flare it will still carry a lot of weight.
I am going to ask you a straight up question, in a three panel with the same rocker and length
and depth ,which is faster or more effecient , a boat with a 38 inch width at the water line or a boat that is 28 inches at the water line.
Can you paddle that 38 inch wide boat as well as the narrow one when you are sitting where the center of buoyancy is at its best.
Can you paddle it straight with as much ease
is the most efferent stroke as close to center and parrell with the side of a boat
I think everyone here knows the answers to all these questions if they are answered straight up without throwing in the oranges pears and grapfruits to muddy the water.
Ron
I knew some folks that drank a quart of whiskey every day for the 30 years I knew them now you would think they would figure out that wasnt the best thing to do ,but they never did. Thats the same way I feel about the folks building the wide flair boats ,just because they did it doesnt make it right.
A wide flair boat does not paddle as easy as a narrower boat in the dimensions and usage talked about here so just like Matt I disagree with you on that.
sorry Matt, but when you posted this:
"If all other things are the same, it would be close" I thought you meant there wouldn't be much diference in paddling the two pirogues
Ron, Let's unmuddy the water and get back to the original premise - maybe I should have started a separate thread. BUT, we're looking at two pirogues (not kayaks, canoes, skiffs or whatever). They are the same except one has a 35 degree flare and the other has a 15 degree flare. They both have the same load - one sinks 4.6 inches the other sinks 4.9 inches - so they're not lightly loaded.
One has a waterline beam of 30.4 and the other 26.6 - don't know how 38 inches and 28 inches got in the discussion
One has a wetted perimeter or area in the middle of 35.2 the other 34.2
Leave the paddler out of the equation - assume he's big enough or can move to where he's comfortable.
Look at just these two pirogues, is there really that much difference in padling effort?
"If all other things are the same, it would be close" I thought you meant there wouldn't be much diference in paddling the two pirogues
Ron, Let's unmuddy the water and get back to the original premise - maybe I should have started a separate thread. BUT, we're looking at two pirogues (not kayaks, canoes, skiffs or whatever). They are the same except one has a 35 degree flare and the other has a 15 degree flare. They both have the same load - one sinks 4.6 inches the other sinks 4.9 inches - so they're not lightly loaded.
One has a waterline beam of 30.4 and the other 26.6 - don't know how 38 inches and 28 inches got in the discussion
One has a wetted perimeter or area in the middle of 35.2 the other 34.2
Leave the paddler out of the equation - assume he's big enough or can move to where he's comfortable.
Look at just these two pirogues, is there really that much difference in padling effort?
seedtick said:"If all other things are the same, it would be close" I thought you meant there wouldn't be much diference in paddling the two pirogues
One has a waterline beam of 30.4 and the other 26.6 - don't know how 38 inches and 28 inches got in the discussion
One has a wetted perimeter or area in the middle of 35.2 the other 34.2
Leave the paddler out of the equation - assume he's big enough or can move to where he's comfortable.
I stated that all other things were the same, the pirogues would be about the same. But all other things are NOT the same. One is 38" wide and the other 29" wide.
The height of the sides is where the 38" and 28" came into play. If it was a 3-panel boat, the side height has to be some amount of inches above the waterline. I assumed 10". So when you project the sides with their respecitve flares until they reach 10" above the bottom, that's where the max beam of 38 and 29 comes into play. Even if you include a tumblehome panel or straight vertical panel to create a 5-panel hull, the boat with the 35 degree flare is going to be wider.
Wider boat requires wider reach to paddle. Doesn't matter the size of the paddler... he's is going to have to reach further to paddle a wider boat. Further reach mean more energy expended to have an efficient stroke.
If factors such as paddler reach, paddler size, etc are removed from consideration, then we're not talking about reality. The boats have to propelled by some method. This whole conversation is about human powered... with a paddle... paddle craft. It's about a solo boat for fishing where beekeeper calls home.
OK
Water is going to get crystal clear.
First lets see what started this , Beekeeper wasnt happy with stability or speed of his perow and was looking for ways to improve this. He was paddling the boat solo with a double bladed paddle
Second you cant take the paddler out of it ,if you did all you have is a lump of wood that has no performance, also the paddler needs to be in the right position in the boat to get all the performance out of the boat, this isnt happening if he is sitting in front back off to one side of the boat, doing any of these paddling solo will handicap the boat..Again Bee and his fishing gear is the load.
There are a lot of things that effect performance out of a boat ,probably hundreds,and I am sure not going to get into all of them ,heck I dont know all of them. Some are so sutle you will not notice them unless they are used correctly with other factors.
Ok we have beekeeper sitting on the c o b ,boat is trimed out for the best performance. He is sitting there with his raybans on hair blowing in the wind eyeballing that girl in the bikini ready to make that boat fly.but nothing is happening , yep the paddler has to do something.
For the boat to perform a high stroke parrel to the center line and as close to that center
line is the most effecient, the widder the boat the less effecient he becomes, a longer paddle
has to be used causing the boat to bob back and forth,you have to put out more effort because of the length of the paddle ,it is harder on the shoulders. These are fact not muddy water
The highest percentage factors of a performance ,speed ,ease of paddling a boat are length
width, and paddling efficiency .We are talking perows
Length It is a proven fact that up to around 18 ft length increases speed tracking stability and these all increase the ability of of a paddler to be up to par.
Width The slimmer a boat is ,again in a perow design, the faster and easier it will paddle and improve the tracking .This is a fact
Now lets take your perow a 14 ft long by 28 at the widdest point on the bottom. If I put no flare and no rocker these would be the measurement that had to be pushed thrue the water with Bee load in it
Now we flare the sides ,yep you got it now we have a boat that is 14 ft long and 32 inches wide at the water line, ok lets look at what just happened, you got a boost in .
secondary stability just improved,now what you lost was performance in several areas,speed
efffienciy of a paddle stroke,tracking ability and strain on your upper body.
Those are facts
The I can build a rectangle that will have identical wetted area ,a round boat that has the same,but they want paddle worth a dang.
Boat performance is a total of a lot of thing blended and they all are compromises.
But one more thing that is a fact Bee sitting in a boat in the correct position
can paddle easier and more effiecent in a narrow boat with less flare than a boat with a wide flare
Ron
Water is going to get crystal clear.
First lets see what started this , Beekeeper wasnt happy with stability or speed of his perow and was looking for ways to improve this. He was paddling the boat solo with a double bladed paddle
Second you cant take the paddler out of it ,if you did all you have is a lump of wood that has no performance, also the paddler needs to be in the right position in the boat to get all the performance out of the boat, this isnt happening if he is sitting in front back off to one side of the boat, doing any of these paddling solo will handicap the boat..Again Bee and his fishing gear is the load.
There are a lot of things that effect performance out of a boat ,probably hundreds,and I am sure not going to get into all of them ,heck I dont know all of them. Some are so sutle you will not notice them unless they are used correctly with other factors.
Ok we have beekeeper sitting on the c o b ,boat is trimed out for the best performance. He is sitting there with his raybans on hair blowing in the wind eyeballing that girl in the bikini ready to make that boat fly.but nothing is happening , yep the paddler has to do something.
For the boat to perform a high stroke parrel to the center line and as close to that center
line is the most effecient, the widder the boat the less effecient he becomes, a longer paddle
has to be used causing the boat to bob back and forth,you have to put out more effort because of the length of the paddle ,it is harder on the shoulders. These are fact not muddy water
The highest percentage factors of a performance ,speed ,ease of paddling a boat are length
width, and paddling efficiency .We are talking perows
Length It is a proven fact that up to around 18 ft length increases speed tracking stability and these all increase the ability of of a paddler to be up to par.
Width The slimmer a boat is ,again in a perow design, the faster and easier it will paddle and improve the tracking .This is a fact
Now lets take your perow a 14 ft long by 28 at the widdest point on the bottom. If I put no flare and no rocker these would be the measurement that had to be pushed thrue the water with Bee load in it
Now we flare the sides ,yep you got it now we have a boat that is 14 ft long and 32 inches wide at the water line, ok lets look at what just happened, you got a boost in .
secondary stability just improved,now what you lost was performance in several areas,speed
efffienciy of a paddle stroke,tracking ability and strain on your upper body.
Those are facts
The I can build a rectangle that will have identical wetted area ,a round boat that has the same,but they want paddle worth a dang.
Boat performance is a total of a lot of thing blended and they all are compromises.
But one more thing that is a fact Bee sitting in a boat in the correct position
can paddle easier and more effiecent in a narrow boat with less flare than a boat with a wide flare
Ron
This has drifted away from my question on changes to our boats, and my disscusson with seedtick and Keith.
Too much typing for me to address everybody's input. My thoughts about flair, and where I'm at now:
1. If pirogue B is more efficient ( not the same as easier to paddle faster) than A (after they are built to draft the same) it is because B has a better width to length water line, not because it has less wetted area.
2. Pirogue B's floor has to increase to 26" to have equal draft, and the wetted area becomes equal, with a water beam width differances of 2".
3. I was thinking in terms of wetted surface as being frictional resistance. Keith said to think in terms of pushing (penetrating) the water. The shape of the water line would determins the hull's effecentcy, wetted area being the same.
beekeeper
Too much typing for me to address everybody's input. My thoughts about flair, and where I'm at now:
1. If pirogue B is more efficient ( not the same as easier to paddle faster) than A (after they are built to draft the same) it is because B has a better width to length water line, not because it has less wetted area.
2. Pirogue B's floor has to increase to 26" to have equal draft, and the wetted area becomes equal, with a water beam width differances of 2".
3. I was thinking in terms of wetted surface as being frictional resistance. Keith said to think in terms of pushing (penetrating) the water. The shape of the water line would determins the hull's effecentcy, wetted area being the same.
beekeeper
seedtick said: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.......
This sounds interesting, maybe you could start a new thread about the mill.
Mike
beekeeper said:1. If pirogue B is more efficient ( not the same as easier to paddle faster)
Bee, I say this with as much respect as I can: If you think those 2 are not related in a solo paddlecraft, you are being foolish.
Good luck with your project.
Bee
If you want an easy way to play with some of these ideals build you a extension of your boat that can be clamped to the stern and see how much diference it makes or if it is worth it to you
Ron
If you want an easy way to play with some of these ideals build you a extension of your boat that can be clamped to the stern and see how much diference it makes or if it is worth it to you
Ron
Ron, thanks for the suggestion. I had considered doing that, but was also considering some cosmetic and decking issue changes also. I may reconsider and use your idea befor I commit to a complete build.
Matt, I have not implied that a wide (water line) beamed boat is more efficient to paddle than one with less. I am not trying to make a point about anything. I know factors of design work together, and many things determin how a boat handles.
To add the factor of which boat is easier to paddle adds the element of apples to oranges when isolating one factor. If you change the floor of boat A to 19" the water beam width becomes the same 26.6". Boat A (the 35 deg. flaired boat) would then be just as easy to paddle as B. It would also have less wetted perimeter 32" vs 34" for the 15deg. flared boat B. If boats with less wetted area are faster, then boat A (35 deg. flare) would now be the fastest. That is an apples to oranges comparison because the drafts are now different different.
It still seems to me that the width to length ratio of the water line determines the hull efficiency. If it is to be powered by paddle it has to be narrow enough to paddle well but wide enough to stay in it.
beekeeper
Matt, I have not implied that a wide (water line) beamed boat is more efficient to paddle than one with less. I am not trying to make a point about anything. I know factors of design work together, and many things determin how a boat handles.
To add the factor of which boat is easier to paddle adds the element of apples to oranges when isolating one factor. If you change the floor of boat A to 19" the water beam width becomes the same 26.6". Boat A (the 35 deg. flaired boat) would then be just as easy to paddle as B. It would also have less wetted perimeter 32" vs 34" for the 15deg. flared boat B. If boats with less wetted area are faster, then boat A (35 deg. flare) would now be the fastest. That is an apples to oranges comparison because the drafts are now different different.
It still seems to me that the width to length ratio of the water line determines the hull efficiency. If it is to be powered by paddle it has to be narrow enough to paddle well but wide enough to stay in it.
beekeeper
Frankly, I was disappointed to see the variable of the "paddler" introduced. If you are comparing boats, you get a more accurate picture of the boat itself if you use only the boat itself, as the Sea Kayaker Magazine does with their tests. They add ballast to simulate a paddler's weight, and then test the boat. An individual paddler adds many variables that can, and do, either complement or defeat an individual boat's design characteristics. You're using an imaginary paddler, an imaginary stream and spring scale could just as imaginarily be used.
Beekeeper the info has been thrown out there your the one that has to sort it out.
Jack the paddler in this case didnt influence the discussion because the only thing discussed about the paddler was what was efiecient regardless of who they were if in the optiman trim location. A spring scale couldnt duplicate strain on shoulders wobble of the boat with a long sweep caused by to wide a flair.
It doesnt apply to this discussion
Ron
I guess I missed the point here you are going to make the bottom slimmer to match the water line you have created with a wide flair to make the boats equal?
Dah I thought you were wanting more stability not less.
Like I said the facts are there have fun
Jack the paddler in this case didnt influence the discussion because the only thing discussed about the paddler was what was efiecient regardless of who they were if in the optiman trim location. A spring scale couldnt duplicate strain on shoulders wobble of the boat with a long sweep caused by to wide a flair.
It doesnt apply to this discussion
Ron
I guess I missed the point here you are going to make the bottom slimmer to match the water line you have created with a wide flair to make the boats equal?
Dah I thought you were wanting more stability not less.
Like I said the facts are there have fun
Ron, two ideas going at once. I posted about changes I would like to try after my last build and why. Also asked if other builders wanted to discuss any changes they would make to their boats. Those disscussions did touch on V bottoms, stability, turbulance, etc.
While visting with seedtick and Keith we talked about degree of side flair and its relation to efficiency, draft, stability, and wetted surface. Seedtick posted the numbers, examples, and some of the thoughts we were seeing. It has been said wide flaired boats are not as fast as less flared ones, because they have more wetted area. I could not see this. With the same load and same width bottom, it seemed to me the less flared one would sink more and the water would be higher on the sides and give you the same amount of wetted area. The figures show them to be close. If I was trying to prove my suspicions, (didn't say a point) I would proclaim; " There is no practicle differance, or you can not tell the differance,etc." If I belived that flaired boats had to be slower, I would proclaim; "That differance proves it. You can't paddle a wide flaired boat well. etc"
Puts us back to where we started. The boats are not the same because they draft different. If being able to reach over the sides to paddle is important, we cant ignore dragging on bottom. Build them to draft the same and the wetted area becomes equal. Build them to have the same water line beam width and the wetted area is in favor of the more flared one.
I'm sorry if I got you confused.
beekeeper
While visting with seedtick and Keith we talked about degree of side flair and its relation to efficiency, draft, stability, and wetted surface. Seedtick posted the numbers, examples, and some of the thoughts we were seeing. It has been said wide flaired boats are not as fast as less flared ones, because they have more wetted area. I could not see this. With the same load and same width bottom, it seemed to me the less flared one would sink more and the water would be higher on the sides and give you the same amount of wetted area. The figures show them to be close. If I was trying to prove my suspicions, (didn't say a point) I would proclaim; " There is no practicle differance, or you can not tell the differance,etc." If I belived that flaired boats had to be slower, I would proclaim; "That differance proves it. You can't paddle a wide flaired boat well. etc"
Puts us back to where we started. The boats are not the same because they draft different. If being able to reach over the sides to paddle is important, we cant ignore dragging on bottom. Build them to draft the same and the wetted area becomes equal. Build them to have the same water line beam width and the wetted area is in favor of the more flared one.
I'm sorry if I got you confused.
beekeeper
Kayak Jack said:Frankly, I was disappointed to see the variable of the "paddler" introduced. If you are comparing boats, you get a more accurate picture of the boat itself if you use only the boat itself, as the Sea Kayaker Magazine does with their tests. They add ballast to simulate a paddler's weight, and then test the boat. An individual paddler adds many variables that can, and do, either complement or defeat an individual boat's design characteristics. You're using an imaginary paddler, an imaginary stream and spring scale could just as imaginarily be used.
Well then we shouldn't care if a boat is flat bottomed or round bottomed for discussion. It floats on the water, it's a boat. Introducing imaginary streams, currents, or waves will only defeat or compliment the hulls design.
I could see your point if we were debating if it's appropriate for a smaller paddler or child or adult with shorter arms. But regardless if the paddler is 5 foot nothing or 6'8, their reach will extend and their weight will shift... to some increment... to paddle a wider hull.
Don't know why you're hung up on the paddler having to reach - I don't paddle a 38" beam pirogue at the 38" point, i don't paddle a 28" beampirogue at the widest point. I move back to about a 20 or 22" beam. So I want to take the paddler out of the discussion.
The real question - if anybody can answer = is the efficiency/ drag/ glide coefficient comparison of the two hulls i described, both with the same displacement and a similar wetted area. Only one being a little deeper and narrower in the water and the other being a little shallower and wider in the water
The real question - if anybody can answer = is the efficiency/ drag/ glide coefficient comparison of the two hulls i described, both with the same displacement and a similar wetted area. Only one being a little deeper and narrower in the water and the other being a little shallower and wider in the water
seedtick said:Don't know why you're hung up on the paddler having to reach - I don't paddle a 38" beam pirogue at the 38" point, i don't paddle a 28" beampirogue at the widest point. I move back to about a 20 or 22" beam. So I want to take the paddler out of the discussion.
The real question - if anybody can answer = is the efficiency/ drag/ glide coefficient comparison of the two hulls i described, both with the same displacement and a similar wetted area. Only one being a little deeper and narrower in the water and the other being a little shallower and wider in the water
I imagine when you sit far back either the nose of the boat is up in the air or you have it counter-weighted to hold it down to compensate for improper positioning. So your solo-paddled hull is either out of trim or artificailly loaded.
Your second question can't be answered with any hope for accuracy unless the hull is trimmed level.
Can't leave the paddler out of a discussion that will have any reasonable application to reality.
I never said anything about solo paddling or a light load
my question had both loaded such that they were almost halfway down in the water (at the midpoint) -not a particularly light load
I would have thought that assuming both were trimmed level was obvious -
my question had both loaded such that they were almost halfway down in the water (at the midpoint) -not a particularly light load
I would have thought that assuming both were trimmed level was obvious -
Perhaps you should start a new thread because this was about Bee's boat needs, which is solo, correct?
seedtick said:I would have thought that assuming both were trimmed level was obvious -
To me a trimmed out boat is the easiest one to paddle no matter which boat it is , a kayak or a canoe.
I have found , by personal experience , that the narrower the boat is the faster it is or easier to paddle up stream even downstream. There is a wild card in this and that is the person or persons ability at paddling.
One trip I used the kayak and the guy's were in canoes. Paddling upstream against a strong current ( the Silver River ) I had no problem with covering the distance while the guys in the canoes were really working , most of them in a tandem canoe. Again on a different river I was going upstream and saw a couple of guys in canoes ( solo ) with trolling motors ,I managed to catch them , pass them and was further up the river taking a break when they arrived at my location.
That makes me think that a narrow boat has less resistance to the water then a wider boat. :roll: As far as the water line on the boat , that is probably determined by the weight of the boat and what is in that boat. The more weight the lower it will sit in water , I believe it is called displacement. Length , width and weight usually determines that. Exception.... A boat that has a leak , they will sit lower in the water as time passes or so I have been told.
As far as the difference between a flat bottom , a V bottom or a round bottom I believe the V bottom would be the deepest in the water considering all three have the same weight in the boat just due to the construction of it. The round bottom would be next with the flat bottom the shallowest. Anyway that is what I have found out with the three different boats and the same amount of camping gear in each one on different river trips.
Whats the old saying dazel them with brilliance or baffle the with BS. I think the bs is getting pretty thick :lol: :lol:
Lets take some facts
The wider an object is the harder it is to push through water Period that is a fact
The longer boat is going to be faster thats a fact
A trimed boat is faster Fact
the more efeicent a paddler is the faster a boat is fact
Now this conversation was started with Bee boat not being stable as he wanted it and being to hard to paddle ,Bee with his fishing gear and a double paddle I think thats a fact :lol:
Now let me give you my thoughts on perows, they are not fast high effenciency boats ,they are the vollswagons truck boats . Made to carry a load in shallow protected water,because of there design they are not fast ,dont track or paddle well. The design of the boat was simple fast and cheap to build. You could take deminsional lumber and build them easily and the cypress made them last a long time. Like all boats there owners built for there usage and it was easy to do ,now here is my thinking on the flair or angle of the sides,with straight lumber if you wanted a big rocker so you could just run up on a bank you flaired the sides ,the more flair the more rocker ,nice and simple,then you had the problem of a boat that was to wide to paddle well so you put a tumbleholm on the boat to try to help,like several I have seen Seed
post on here.
These boats were work horses not speed boats.
I can paddle a boat in a lot of weird positions and locations in the boat but thats not what were talking about .
I like fast mile eating easy paddling boats so I have built several perows with that in mind ,every one using more of what I have learned contributes to speed and handling, I dont guess at there performance ,I use a gps to tell me the cruise ,and top speed , sometime just an inch of movement front or back can make a huge difference , so it isnt guessing I am talking another fact.
The fastest perow I own is 16 ft long
2 inches of rocker bow 1 1/2 stern
20 inch bottom
very little flair
asymetrical
Not even close to one that has heavy flaired sides symetrical lot of rocker like my first one.
It was a nice boat but not a performer.
If I wanted a Replica of a boat built with fine craftsmanship,Seed and his partner would be the folks to talk to. If I wanted a opion on paddling with a canoe paddle and a lot of experience of paddling different kinds of water Chuck has the knowledge and experience.
High performance sea going boats with a lot of general paddling Talk to Mick.He has built and paddled a bunch of boats,Jacks built 2 or 3 boats and has a good working knowledge of the sheild country and whats needed there, Long distance paddling carring heavy loads in veried conditions and hig wind ,Me or Darrel have a little expertise. Now if you want a design worked out You have to go with Matt he has the computer knowledge and soft ware to design a heck of a boat and do little tweaks that we never think about, plus he has designed hundreds of boats and I would say over a 1000 have been built all over the world ,I have never seen a bad report or a put down of one of his designs.
A heck of a knowledge pool.
I am going to throw this out. If I wanted a boat that will do what you had listed above, forget the round corner on the bottom of your boat ,without designing in a change in the hull it is just hurting your stability,forget the bobed off back end for a trolling motor,one its a pain trying to twist to run one ,I have tried that on a square back canoe . If you want a trolling motor set one up in place of a rudder with a little rigging this works well, You have already found out what too much rocker is like. If you play with putting on decks dont put just one on if you do your weather cocking will be worse instead of better. Go with a little smaller flair to improve your paddling ability and decrease your drag. Now these are all suggestions take what you want figure out what is important to you and compromise ,you will have a much better boat.
One thing I see on here that causes a lot of problems is take one aspect of a boat and just focusing on it instead of the overall boat .
I promise you there is no one silver bullet.
Ron
Ps One little not on water line it also can be increased by the design of the bow and stern ,example The duck has a 16 ft water line in a 16 ft boat. Also go to the net and look up perows that are raced ,you want see any heavy flares they want to go fast.
Lets take some facts
The wider an object is the harder it is to push through water Period that is a fact
The longer boat is going to be faster thats a fact
A trimed boat is faster Fact
the more efeicent a paddler is the faster a boat is fact
Now this conversation was started with Bee boat not being stable as he wanted it and being to hard to paddle ,Bee with his fishing gear and a double paddle I think thats a fact :lol:
Now let me give you my thoughts on perows, they are not fast high effenciency boats ,they are the vollswagons truck boats . Made to carry a load in shallow protected water,because of there design they are not fast ,dont track or paddle well. The design of the boat was simple fast and cheap to build. You could take deminsional lumber and build them easily and the cypress made them last a long time. Like all boats there owners built for there usage and it was easy to do ,now here is my thinking on the flair or angle of the sides,with straight lumber if you wanted a big rocker so you could just run up on a bank you flaired the sides ,the more flair the more rocker ,nice and simple,then you had the problem of a boat that was to wide to paddle well so you put a tumbleholm on the boat to try to help,like several I have seen Seed
post on here.
These boats were work horses not speed boats.
I can paddle a boat in a lot of weird positions and locations in the boat but thats not what were talking about .
I like fast mile eating easy paddling boats so I have built several perows with that in mind ,every one using more of what I have learned contributes to speed and handling, I dont guess at there performance ,I use a gps to tell me the cruise ,and top speed , sometime just an inch of movement front or back can make a huge difference , so it isnt guessing I am talking another fact.
The fastest perow I own is 16 ft long
2 inches of rocker bow 1 1/2 stern
20 inch bottom
very little flair
asymetrical
Not even close to one that has heavy flaired sides symetrical lot of rocker like my first one.
It was a nice boat but not a performer.
If I wanted a Replica of a boat built with fine craftsmanship,Seed and his partner would be the folks to talk to. If I wanted a opion on paddling with a canoe paddle and a lot of experience of paddling different kinds of water Chuck has the knowledge and experience.
High performance sea going boats with a lot of general paddling Talk to Mick.He has built and paddled a bunch of boats,Jacks built 2 or 3 boats and has a good working knowledge of the sheild country and whats needed there, Long distance paddling carring heavy loads in veried conditions and hig wind ,Me or Darrel have a little expertise. Now if you want a design worked out You have to go with Matt he has the computer knowledge and soft ware to design a heck of a boat and do little tweaks that we never think about, plus he has designed hundreds of boats and I would say over a 1000 have been built all over the world ,I have never seen a bad report or a put down of one of his designs.
A heck of a knowledge pool.
I am going to throw this out. If I wanted a boat that will do what you had listed above, forget the round corner on the bottom of your boat ,without designing in a change in the hull it is just hurting your stability,forget the bobed off back end for a trolling motor,one its a pain trying to twist to run one ,I have tried that on a square back canoe . If you want a trolling motor set one up in place of a rudder with a little rigging this works well, You have already found out what too much rocker is like. If you play with putting on decks dont put just one on if you do your weather cocking will be worse instead of better. Go with a little smaller flair to improve your paddling ability and decrease your drag. Now these are all suggestions take what you want figure out what is important to you and compromise ,you will have a much better boat.
One thing I see on here that causes a lot of problems is take one aspect of a boat and just focusing on it instead of the overall boat .
I promise you there is no one silver bullet.
Ron
Ps One little not on water line it also can be increased by the design of the bow and stern ,example The duck has a 16 ft water line in a 16 ft boat. Also go to the net and look up perows that are raced ,you want see any heavy flares they want to go fast.