View topic - Mixed use canoes - ww & large lakes

It is currently December 12th, 2019, 8:33 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: March 22nd, 2004, 9:54 am 
Offline

Joined: January 14th, 2003, 7:00 pm
Posts: 214
Location: Milwaukee, WI USA
Al Baars does make the most sense. I was thinking for a bit about getting a w/c for tripping. I am backing away from that at the moment.
Yes, why don't I just get another Penobscot. We did get quite good at turning that straight, symetrical hull in the rapids and are very confidant of it's abilities. But, it is difficult to turn and it is not so great on flatwater. WIth a fairly low bow and stern, waves would come in to the boat whenever they felt like it. Even with a spray skirt, enough water would come up over the bow that enough snuck in under the skirt to make me a bit uncomfortable.

A canoe with a bit more upsweep of the bow and a bit more rocker to make turning a little easier is what I am looking for at this point.

And let's face it, after driving a Ford for 15 years maybe it is time to start looking at what BMW can offer me. I may just want a change.

D.R. Zandee has made up a great list. That just about covers the options. The Bell Northwind will now be available in kevlar and various fibreglass lay-ups. These will be at the original 17'. The royalex lay-up has been reconfigured up to 17' and will now be called the Alaskan. Up until now the Northwind in royalex was at 16.6', I believe to reduce oil canning. The Alaskan is a new boat and that is what I will be testing next month.

I paddle a Bell Merlin, solo boat in Kevlar and do consider the Bell to be the BMW to Old Town's Ford brand. So I look forward to the test paddle and will report in once I do that.

In spite of all the evidance that the Penobscot in 17' was an oil canning beast, the only time I saw flex was while running empty. What concerned me was even while loaded with gear there was too much flex in the hull and that caused a less efficient paddle.

I traded the old Penobscot for some money off on native art up in Baker Lake. he bottom was worn very thin and the seats needed repalcing as well as the thwarts. There was a huge splotch of epoxy on the bottom sealing up some cracks that formed. I decided it wasn't woth a couple hundred dollars to ship it home from Baker this past year. I think it will be offered for rental by the guy I traded with. Hell, I may use it if I initiate a trip out of Baker Lake in the next few years.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: March 22nd, 2004, 3:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2002, 7:00 pm
Posts: 1018
Location: Duluth, MN USA
We pack very light, and my wife isn't heavy, so we don't need a high volume "tripping" boat for even a long trip. I could recommend the Spirit II, but our total weight is probably less than 500 lbs for a 30 day trip.

We bought our Spirit II after consulting reps at Old Town (looking at the Penobscot) and Wenonah. I've paddled an Old Town Tripper on several trips, but not in much WW. I crossed this boat off immediately b/c it had a larger capacity than we need, it's heavy, and I thought it tracked poorly, although I've heard newer models track better.

Our Spirit II tracks well, but is noticeably slower than an efficient touring canoe like the Minnesota II. It handles rough flatwater extremely well. Generally speaking, upwind, or with a crosswind, the canoe can take whatever it's given up until the point where the wind gets too strong to paddle. Downwind, we've run big rollers that had periods longer than our canoe with confidence. We took the canoe surfing in Florida over Christmas -no problems even w/o the spray cover.

In WW, waves aren't a problem with our spray cover. We always scout C III's and hope it's rated for big water rather than tight turns. I wish we could pruduce tighter turns. It has some rocker to it, but it's not a playboat, esp. loaded. We avoid stuff where tight eddy turns are mandatory.

After reading and hearing so much about Canadian freestyle canoeing, I started poking around in our Spirit II solo, with it heeled over. It's remarkable fast and tracks easily this way. This is much preferable to sitting in the bow seat and paddling backwards.

...

May 50 years from now there will be a modular canoe with an adjustable hull - It can be a highly rockered 14' WW boat, or an 18' touring canoe.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: March 22nd, 2004, 3:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: January 14th, 2003, 7:00 pm
Posts: 214
Location: Milwaukee, WI USA
500 lbs for 30 days! wow.
Tell me that's in addition to your own body weight.

Returning this last year we had to weigh our bags in Baker Lake prior to boarding the Calm Air flight. We had almost 400 lbs after the food was reduced to rotting trash in the barrel. Food wise, I think we weighed in at about 225 lbs although we didn't weigh at the start.

We do pack heavy yet I feel esentials are all we bring. We sleep in seperate tents as the other guy snores and I hate losing sleep. I switched this past year from my little North Face tent weighing 2.8 lbs, with poles to a 3 person REI tent weighing 8.5 lbs with poles. And he carried a tent weighing over 12 lbs.

But our weight is tolerable and not necessarily my main consideration in choosing a canoe. I don't pay close attention to the manufaturer's suggested weight limit.I think the Penobscot was rated at 950 lbs. At the start of any trip in that boat we had little freeboard. A few days of packing and re-packing and our freeboard increased. So initially, our packing was too concentrated and as the trip wore on we were spreading it out different. I take weight restrictions by the maker with a grain of salt and tend to pack based on experience with the particular boat.

With that said, I am more likely ot look favorably at a boat with a rating of 1100 lbs over one rated 900 lbs. My assumptinon is if we pack 900 lbs into an 1100 lb rated boat, we will have more freeboard and more bouyancy which will give us better paddling over the shallows or waves. But maybe not if all manufacterers exagerate their weight ratings.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: March 22nd, 2004, 5:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2002, 7:00 pm
Posts: 1018
Location: Duluth, MN USA
I'm trying to be honest, but that's a guestimate. I mention the weight, b/c if you packed heavy and had two 200+ lb paddlers, our Spirit II probably wouldn't perform as well.

....

Two people: 310 lbs.
Gear: 2 packs, 1 really light pack with sleeping bags and a heavier one, perhaps around 40 lbs.
Food: two packs, should be less than 70 lbs. That's 2.3 lbs/day per person. seems like a lot - esp. b/c we eat 2 packets of oatmeal and coffee for almost every breakfast.


We have a 6 lb tent, bags, pads, small Svea stove, and 2 aluminum pots, and some light misc. stuff. I pack an extra pair of socks and a wool pullover. We'll do an arctic trip next summer, so I'll buy a raincoat. My wife has some clothes, but not too many. These are in a dry bag and actually part of our food pack. Our camera and 1st aid kit are the big items, and the camera is carried seperately.

We have a couple xtra paddles and a spray cover, maybe we get close to 550lbs. I'll weigh our packs next trip. Weeklong trips we single portage, so the ~40 lb pack above gets food added to it, and the light pack gets a few more items.

I once did a 2 week solo trip with 55 lb canoe and single portaged. I had a bivy sack, wool pullover, xtra pr socks, sleeping bag, and aluminum pot. I ate rice, freeze-dried peas, boiled fish and pine needle tea, twice a day. One night I boiled bisquick dough as a treat.

Every trip after that was packing heavy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: April 6th, 2004, 6:33 am 
Offline

Joined: June 27th, 2001, 7:00 pm
Posts: 719
Location: Ontario Canada
Frank - those capacity ratings of 900 lbs, 1100 lbs, etc. are an absurd joke. You should pay no attention to them, as they only relate to some irrelevant dimension of 6" to the gunwales above the waterline. No canoe can be loaded to those numbers and used for tripping. Look at the Wenonah or Swift websites , and you'll see these types of numbers are not published, and for good reason. 500 lbs in my Swift Kipawa is a lot of weight, and adversely affects handling, but if there were a published number for this hull, it would be closer to 1000 lbs than 500. When I bought my royalex Spirit II, I test paddled it under terrible conditions (high winds, whitecaps) with a large, adult male bow paddler, and 125 lbs of ballast simulation tripping gear. Did the same with 5 other canoes, and that test paddle was the basis for my selection.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: April 6th, 2004, 8:08 am 
JonL

Those 1000 lb ratings are DOT numbers. Meant to give a max load for the canoe with a standard freeboard. If you have a big tandem team with lots of gear and follow swift guidlines you'll have to paddle a 22 ft canoe . Of course if you want this superiour performance the canoe will have to be lightly loaded and if you're too big for this then its too bad. Afterall the voyageurs paddled heavily laden boats - so you'll be in good historical company . What sort of manouverability are people looking for ? Do some want to dipsey doodle through rapids on an extended wilderness trip- then hope to have great tracking on open stretches of water. There's no such perfect combination .How many times do we have to go through this exercise ?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: April 7th, 2004, 4:08 am 
Jon L wrote:
[...]
>500 lbs in my Swift Kipawa is a lot of weight,
>and adversely affects handling, but
>if there were a published number for this hull,
>it would be closer to 1000 lbs than 500.

You are right , and actually they (Swift) do,
and for the Kipawa it is 950 lb @ 6" freeboard,
while their performance capacity ratings for the Kipawa
is between 360-510 lb.
My average tripping load is 440 lb.
and that works well in the Kipawa.

I have found that dividing the 6" freeboard capacity rating
by two, most often will give a much more meaningful idea
about the maximum performance capacity of a canoe.

Dirk Barends


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: April 7th, 2004, 7:46 am 
Offline

Joined: June 21st, 2001, 7:00 pm
Posts: 452
Location: Lynn Haven, Florida USA
Frank Sinatra wrote:
Al Baars does make the most sense. I was thinking for a bit about getting a w/c for tripping. I am backing away from that at the moment.
Yes, why don't I just get another Penobscot. We did get quite good at turning that straight, symetrical hull in the rapids and are very confidant of it's abilities. But, it is difficult to turn and it is not so great on flatwater. WIth a fairly low bow and stern, waves would come in to the boat whenever they felt like it. Even with a spray skirt, enough water would come up over the bow that enough snuck in under the skirt to make me a bit uncomfortable.

A canoe with a bit more upsweep of the bow and a bit more rocker to make turning a little easier is what I am looking for at this point.

And let's face it, after driving a Ford for 15 years maybe it is time to start looking at what BMW can offer me. I may just want a change.

D.R. Zandee has made up a great list. That just about covers the options. The Bell Northwind will now be available in kevlar and various fibreglass lay-ups. These will be at the original 17'. The royalex lay-up has been reconfigured up to 17' and will now be called the Alaskan. Up until now the Northwind in royalex was at 16.6', I believe to reduce oil canning. The Alaskan is a new boat and that is what I will be testing next month.

I.




The Old Town Tripper will meet your dual-use requirements very well. It turns much better than the Penobscot and it's very dry. Pretty good speed on big lakes into 20 mph winds and crashing through white caps. We've used ours on the upper (starting at Dog Lake)+ lower Missinaibi and on the big lakes and rapids of Wabakimi. Though the Penobscot is supposed to be faster, we've outrun a much younger couple in one during a friendly 2 or 3 mile race with packs.

The wood gunnels make picking up the approx. 78 lbs easier because of the better grip. If you use the Bill Mason lift, getting it on the shoulders is quite easy. With a tump line, I have no problem carrying it 3/4 mile before putting it down.

The boat is very tough and forgiving of rock encounters.

Al


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: canoe selection
PostPosted: April 7th, 2004, 8:36 am 
Offline

Joined: February 23rd, 2003, 7:00 pm
Posts: 14
Location: London, Ontario Canada
I have a great canoe designed by “Trail head” made for them by Rockwood Outfitters. It is 16 foot Kevlar prospector. I have paddled a lot of prospector designs but none of them match up to this one in speed, manoeuvrability, and a great propensity to turn the big waves away. It has just enough rocker on it to allow for easy turning without compromising too much on speed. The Bow flares out perfectly to turn away water, and the tumblehome is great for easy paddling and steerage. Something about this design seems to work great on all accounts and while I have paddled many other canoes, this tripping canoe beats every one of them hands down. It moves at the slightest stroke of the paddle and responds instantly from both the bow and stern. It even looks good. Every canoe has its assets and weaknesses. People who paddle this canoe once, prefer it, but they all say it is a little “tipier” than other canoes so dogs or kids leaning over the edge are immediately noticeable and require a little bit of vigilance in keeping things in order. I have paddled this canoe for 12 years now and the only times I have tipped is when we were practicing tipping with the kids ,gunwale riding or practicing in ww.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: April 7th, 2004, 9:35 am 
I paddled in the Old Town Tripper many times. A reliable workhorse. But newer, sleeker "shallow V" boats like the Trailhead 17' Royalex Prospector are simply better on all counts (except the Prospector weighs 84 lbs.)


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Everyone is different
PostPosted: April 7th, 2004, 10:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: December 2nd, 2002, 7:00 pm
Posts: 3731
Location: Grand Haven, Michigan U.S.A.
Each of our concepts of what consitutes a logical load is different. I personally am of the concept to leave stuff home and opt for the better paddling canoe. That's just me!! I like to trip in the lightest, smallest canoe possible. Others bring three axes incase they loose the chainsaw, and three stoves, and a dutch oven. I'm not saying that is bad, but it dictates what canoe you have and how much you overload it.

I'm with the idea that a canoe at 6" freeboard just isn't fun to paddle. I'm not going to the point that it's unsafe, because personally, I've never paddled a canoe that heavily laden on a trip... nor do I want to. But for others that might just be a reality.

Now to boats. I think an Alaskan will work great. I love Bell Canoes and I personally believe that DY boats are the best designs on the market. Now that is my opinion.... the fact that Cliff who has 35 years of extensive tripping experience likes it hold really little matter to me. Cliff has liked alot of canoes over the years, and is willing to advocate them... and next year it will be some other canoe... He's tripped in the Tripper, the Legend, the Venture, and his newest love is the Alaskan.

I've tripped in a Dumoine.... nice boat. It was the fastest of the canoes on a WW trip we did, and it carried the load very well. Even with it's flared bow it took on water in drops, but hey it was a good time.

I've paddled a Tripper, and it think it's proven itself over time.... especially with the bring it all crowd. I've paddled much better performing boats made by MRC, Swift, Dagger, Bell and others, but "that big pig can carry the load." As to the Penobscot... someone said it was a flatwater boat... What? It's named after the Penobscot River which ahs some serious rapids. I see it more of a river boat... that can run rapids.... akin to a MRC Explorer. The Appalachian is more funtional in whitewater but like the MRC Freedom is a pig on flatwater.

So do you want to pack light and have a frisky boat? Do you want all that gear and paddle a less maneuverable boat? None of these boats will perform in all circumstances... but in my opinion, I will always paddle with less gear and a better paddling boat. I love the feel of a boat performing well better than worrying about having all the gear.

PK


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: April 8th, 2004, 4:29 am 
I too try to choose my tripping canoes not bigger than really
necessary, because smaller canoes are inherently lighter in weight,
and because they will perform better when used much lighter loaded.
But I prefer a little bigger than what you need in stead of a little
too small. Although I did not expect it, I experienced that with my
Dagger Interlude, that didn't handle well anymore in difficult
situations with my average tripping load aboard, probably because
it was just a little too small for that kind of weight.
However, if you really know what you are doing, are aware of the
restrictions and paddle accordingly, and preferably have a
canoe design that is more tolerant of 'overweight',
then a little too small may be all right?

Dirk Barends


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: April 10th, 2004, 8:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: June 20th, 2001, 7:00 pm
Posts: 3145
SWIFT wrote:
Quote:



and to add my very brief two cents, i am very happy with my "all round canoe" the kevlar Swift Dumoine. Shaped from it's ww cousin the Dumoine royalex, this boat has some rocker to it, high bow, good capacity, keelless... check out Swift's website...

How do you keep this thing dry? We paddle class 3 with no spray covers. We are always bailing the Dumoine while the others in the "heavy pig" OT Tripper are not bailing....its not skill..we are the same level. I think the Dumoine just plain knifes through the haystacks and the OT bounces over... I think next time I would pick a symmetrical boat...also the Dumoines stern tends to skeg.which downriver isnt a big deal but on tight eddy turns I have to lean way out(in the bow) to rail the boat to the water to help that stern around..it wont skid well.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: April 13th, 2004, 1:49 am 
Kim, you wrote:
[...]
>I think next time I would pick a symmetrical boat...
Many 'real' whitewater designs are asymmetrical,
so why do you suggest that a symmetrical design will be dryer?

>also the Dumoines stern tends to skeg.
>which downriver isnt a big deal but on tight eddy turns
>I have to lean way out(in the bow) to rail the boat to
>the water to help that ster around..it wont skid well.

I don't quite understand what you mean with skid: as I see it (and
experience with the Kipawa, the flatwater version of the Dumoine)
getting into an eddy is not more difficult than with more
'stern maneuverable' designs?
But, I only lean (but as little as possible/needed) into the eddy
turn for stability -- not for (more) maneuverability.
In fact, I understand from slalom paddlers that if you want
speedy results, leaning to the outside will provide that,
although it probably will be a wet experience too (I know...)

Dirk Barends


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group