Date: Wed, 08 Jul 1998 15:51:59 -0500
From: "Wolfgang Brinck" <wolfgang.brinck@hksystems.com>
To: baidarka@lists.intelenet.net
Subject: Re: [baidarka] successful trip
It seems that the nature of the expedition changes based on the boat. I
believe that you can go to sleep in a Klepper and it will stay upright
whereas the same cannot be said for a Nordkapp. Furthermore, I believe
that Nordkapps and other British boats have less storage space, thereby
limiting the length of the expedition or necessitation resupply. In the
Caffyn books that I read, he had shore support, someone following along
shore in a car to haul gear. Had he done the same journey in a Klepper,
he could perhaps have done it without the shore support, but would
probably also have taken twice as long. To my knowledge, no-one has
tried to duplicate Lindemann's Atlantic crossing in a Nordkapp.
I am fond of sleek boats myself, but whenever I go on a trip, I keep
thinking that I should build a roomier boat for the next trip.
Wolfgang
Gerald Maroske wrote:
>
> Todd Schlemmer wrote:
>
> > John (?) Dowd
> > is of the school of thought that a beamy folbot is better than one of Derek
> > Hutchison's narrow "canoes". They certainly carry more and are slower.
> >
>
> Hm, I donīt want to fire up this truely inflammable topic, but John Dowd also
> made up his mind in the revised edition of his book "Sea Kayaking". There was
> the fact that the circumnavigations of Japan, the British Isles, New Sealand and
> not to forget Australia were made by Paul Caffyn in a modified greenlandstyle
> "Nordkapp" with 54cm beam. Nigel Foster crossed the Hudson Bay entrance alone in
> a similiar boat. It is always the paddler who counts more than the boat.
> (Lindemann captured also)
>
> But it was really funny to read their flames in the early issues of the
> SeaKayaking magazine. ;-)
>
> Please excuse my teaching style
>
> Gerald