From: Guillemot@aol.com
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 21:18:03 -0400
Message-Id: <950412211732_81254837@aol.com>
To: baidarka@imagelan.com
Subject: Re: Why Plastic boats?
> Tenancy of between 1,000 and 10,000 years, thus somewhere
> between 1 and 10 million kayaks.
> This neglects Kodaik Island, the Arctic, Greenland. Even by
> TASK's highest figures, the modern industry has a long way
> to go to catch up.
What are TASK's numbers and do they include europe and elsewhere, White water
kayaks, Flatwater racing? 10 million kayaks is not very many (it's <0.5% of
the US population). "Canoe and Kayak" magazine give a figure of 14 million
for combined C+K participants in the US. This would probably imply less than
10 million kayakers in the US but it is close and growing. Then add kayakers
outside the US. At the very least the numbers alive today are similar to
historical totals.
The rate of growth of the sport is enough to guarantee numbers of modern
paddlers in a few years that exceeds the historical number over thousands of
years. Don't discount the ability of this hot-house growth to produce designs
every bit as good for their purpose as historical designs. As all of the
modern designs are based on historical models many performance
characteristics have and will be improved.
I think WW kayaks must be included as they contribute to the overall kayak
knowledge. I know WW has contributed to my own sea kayak designs.
> PPS: With Greg Barton paddling, the rough-skinned 5.6m "James Shields"
> (1793) baidarka was faster than the longer, lighter kevlar Seda
> Glider, Seda's fastest production boat. This was a carefully
> controlled test.
All that can be concluded from this is one boat was faster than another boat
in a given situation. You can not extrapolate to a whole class of boats or to
other conditions. You *can* embarrass the designer of the Seda. I would be
interested to hear Greg Barton's conclusions after the test. Has he
experimented more with boats sililar to the "James Shields" since the test?
> With plastic a modern designer is even more limited in what can be done
> than someone who builds in fiberglass.
I am including fiberglass boats under plastic because that is what they
really are. Kevlar boats are pure hydro-carbon.
>A manufacturer may make lots of boats but they make lots of only a few
designs.
>In the Pacific NW everyone who built a boat could be a designer.
>
>Nick, I would think you would be a perfect example of this. I
>expect that you try and make improvements to each new boat when you
>build it. If you lived with or near a dozen or so other people
>who built kayaks I would expect your designs to progress more rapidly
>as you borrowed design details from other builders who had a new idea
>that worked.
The manufacturer may make only a few designs, but the designer made many
prototypes before those few were manufactured. The average builder is not
willing to stray from the prescribed method. If your village elder says that
a dimension should be one cubit, you will tend to believe him. Not everybody
in the village would be a "designer". Most would be conservative and do what
tradition said was correct. I expect there are some people reading this who
feel that way. "The original builders did it that way therefore it must be
right" is really what this debate is all about.
I do borrow ideas from other designers, and because my life does not depend
on it, I am willing to make some mistakes. The average guy that has to go and
kill another seal or die is much less willing to be innovative. The building
of a new kayak when your resources are limited is not a task that invites
experimentation. Risking your life is more an incentive to be conservative in
design than for wild experimentation.
I can sit at my computer and draw up a new design and evalute many aspects of
its performance with no more risk than a lost evening. Building a boat for a
real evaluation requires I have fun in the shop for a couple months. If I
don't like it, I paddle a different boat. I have not lost my livelyhood or my
life.
I may not spend as much time thinking about the design as the old Aleut, but
thinking is useless until you shoot the engineer and build the boat. Since I
can afford a risk the Aleut could not, my designs will evolve faster than the
whole village would be capable of. In less than 10 years I designed and built
more than 10 boats. These included 3 completely different basic design
styles. A village whose life depends on the performance of their kayaks can
not afford to take the design risks I did.
All that said I think we are putting too much stock in the paddler's fear for
their own survival. The average guy is pretty oblivious to his own mortality.
This argues both for and against my theories. He will be willing to take some
stupid risks, yet his motivation to take them (improving his chance of
survival) is reduced.
I do not need to live near the other builders to steal ideas. I can drive to
a symposium, read a magazine, write some e-mail, or go to the local kayak
shop. My sources of inspiration are far wider than a string of small
villages. Close interaction with others can actually squelch innovation. My
first designs were developed in a relative absence of outside influence. I
did not lay eyes on a sea kayak other than my own designs for several years.
I have never spent more than 15 minutes in anyone else's kayak design. While
something is undoubtably lost due this ignorance, I also feel I am not overly
encumbered by previous tradition. I will try things before I know that common
wisdom says I shouldn't.
Don't get me wrong. If the modern designer were trying to develop a boat for
the needs and circumstances of the original kayakers, he may well end up with
the "James Shields" design and construction. The needs and circumstances of
the modern kayaker are different, and therefore, the designs must adapt and
evolve. We may need to check back with some old ideas for new inspiration,
but it is unlikely we will reach the same conclusion as the "James Shields".
There is a lot more to a "good" kayak design than how it handles on the
water. Cost, maintance, ability to be dropped off the roof of a car, room for
a cooler, an integrated cup holder, looks, weight, manufacturability,
comfort, smell, strength, storability, transportability, are all valid design
features. In many cases "non-performance" may be so valuable that a
sacrifice in some aspect of performance is worth it.
The modern designs are better in that they fit our needs better, not because
they are somehow superior kayaks. There is no such thing as the "best" boat.
Quality is too subjective. Speed can be measured, but the fastest is only the
best racer, not neccessarily the best kayak.
>> p.s. the best kayak design is the one your paddling. At least your
paddling.
>> A day in a re-constituted clorox bottle beats a day at work.
>
> Unless you get paid to paddle. At which point a re-constituted clorox
> bottle would get tiresome.
But, it would still beat flipping hamburgers. :)
Nick Schade
p.s. If all you have is $5, a $5 (or less) kayak is the kayak that will best
fit your needs.