canoe709 wrote:
Ok so my prospector is a 17 foot with 36" width. The calculation came out to 5.66, is that still slow or medium speed?
That is not a bad L/W ratio, kind of it the middle.
Overall length divided by max width does not give a true L/W number; canoes with ample bow layout will have a shorter waterline length, and lightly loaded boats will not be floating at max width. But it is a good rough calculation starting point.
The L/W numbers usually fall in a small range. For example an Epic V 12 surf ski is a damn fast boat, 21’ long x 19.9” wide. The L/W is almost 15. But that is a crazy high number and a crazy fast boat, made for top notch surf ski paddlers.
The “fastest” hull we currently own is our Monarch, 17’ 3” x 28”, with an L/W of 7.4. Our soloized Penobscot 16, my favorite tripping canoe, is no speed demon; 16’ 2” x 34” = 5.7 L/W, but it gets me there in safety and comfort.
The bow entry makes a difference. The seemingly “slowest” canoe we own is a blunt nosed Mohawk Odyssey, 14’ 2” x 30 ½” gives a L/W of 5.57. Pushing that blunt bow and flat bottom through the water the Odyssey sure doesn’t seem just a hair slower than the Penobscot; a friend who paddled it remarked “It makes its own wake”. But at the same time it is my favorite canoe for mild whitewater, shallow rivers and strainer filled swamp runs. 1 ¾” of rocker, the flattish bottom will float in a few inches of water, and it has enough primary stability to stand up and hop out onto fallen logs.
The fastest hull we have ever owned was a Sawyer Saber, 20’ long x 24” wide, with a L/W of 10. It was fast with a strong (and well balanced) crew, but it was also 20 feet of wetted surface to overcome. Length is good, up to the point where you can’t push that much hull through the water, or feel comfortable paddling balanced on the waterline width.
Hull bottom shape matters to me, I am less comfortable in canoes with an elliptical bottom and more comfortable with a shallow arch or shallow vee bottom, but that is purely personal preference. My personal “acid test” of stability is simple; can I turn my torso 180 degrees while seated to look behind me without bracing or swimming?
The old Bell Canoe company used to list both a length to waterline ratio, waterline length and waterline displacements at different weights, all helpful bits of information in calculating the loaded L/W.
For example one of the “faster” Bell solos was the Merlin II
15’ 7” overall length
but
14’ 9” waterline length
29” max width
25.5” waterline width (at 240 lbs)
Bell rated the L/W at 7.25.
Um, ok, but the only way to get that L/W number is to use the overall length (15’ 7”) divided by a 240lb waterline width (25.5”). I weigh more than 240lbs soaking wet (which I would be with a 25.5” waterline). Recalculating. . . . .
150 – 200 lbs of gear plus your weight (?) is a considerable load; some manufacturers state an “optimum” weight range or overall weight capacity.
Frozentripper’s suggestion of a Swift Keewaydin 15 is a solo canoe that appeals to me, but with an “Optimum Load Range” of 160 to 320lbs and an “Industry Capacity” of 425 lbs my 200lbs of glamper camping gear plus me would be better off in a solo center seat Kee 16 (Optimum Load 300 to 575lbs, Industry Capacity 950lbs).
Some manufacturers, Wenonah Canoe for example, will not list “weight capacity, believing it is misleading and not as much a factor as conditions, and paddler skill and judgment. No doubt true.
The rough length to waterline ratio is still a good starting place, especially if ordering a boat you have not had opportunity to paddle first.
Please keep us posted on what you select, and how it turns out. Too often we never hear the end of the story.