Date: Sat, 01 Aug 1998 07:46:48 -0700
From: lew plummer <jayhawk@sos.net>
To: baidarka@lists.intelenet.net
Subject: Re: [baidarka] Smaller Hooper bay
kyak@rockisland.com wrote:
>
> Russell Wrote:
>
> >Skip...what was the reason for modifying the length of the Hooper Bay
> >boat??? The reason I'm asking is that I'm CONSIDERING building the
> >Hooper Bay this coming winter....my wife purchased the Zimerly book
> >"Hooper Bay Kayak Construction" for me this past winter...it's a LOT
> >larger than the other two boats I built.....Russell
>
> I had a few reasons in the back of my mind. One is that I doubted I
> would be carrying anywhere near the payloads that the original boats did.
> Excess volume doesn't do much for a boat's handling, especially windage and
> related problems.
>
> Sometimes part of my learning process in absorbing a new kayak type
> involves some "tinkering". In this case, I wanted a solo boat, and it seemed
> as if the "extra" two feet could safely be subtracted. Hooper Bay informants
> told Dr. Z. that "longer boats would not be as seaworthy", something I
> entirely agree with. However I am not sure the reverse is true. I can't
> speak for the Bering Sea, but here in Washington's San Juans I have paddled
> a 10 1/2 foot Wee Lassie canoe for the past 12 years, and in Ct. and Maine
> before that. I never found the length to be a problem.
>
> In fact, if this 13 foot version was a movie, it would be called "
> Wee Lassie comes the Bering Sea".
>
> Paddling this little qayaq ( which I really like) indicated that a
> full-sized boat would really be excellent, and probably better suited if
> camping trips longer than a weekend were contemplated.
>
> The boat will be at Port Townsend sept 11-13 if anyone wants to give
> it a spin.
>
> Skip
Skip,
I have always been under the impression that the Hooper Bay boats were
paddled in the kneeling position, what's your impression?
Lew