Date: 11/18/1999, 2:03 pm
Thanks for the comments. You guys have been a great help and inspiration. It is nice to know there is a place to come for help if problems are encountered.
Lower shears (- 1-1/2 to - 2 inches amidships) and a higher cambered deck (from 30" rad to 18" rad to maintain current volume) are planned for the next build. I want to reduce the amount of surface exposed to wind and improve the deck-to-knuckles clearance. Neither of these adjustments are really necessary - no concerns to date - but I think that they are worthwhile incorporating.
I wonder about a raised bow in my environment (small to medium freshwater lakes and rivers). The bow has enough volume that it does not plunge through a wave but not too much buoyancy such that it raises fast and effects the stability. The bow/stern volume is one of the areas that changed (increased) between the first and second prototypes.
The swept up bows look real cool but I purposely keep it low. I think that even a slight breeze could exert a lot of turning force on a high bow 8 or 9 feet away - possibly causing the "weathercocking" problem you hear about on some kayak designs. The Chesapeake 17 I will be building this spring may lose some of the sweep - will have to see what the volume looks like.
Hank
Messages In This Thread
- New Kayak
Hank -- 11/17/1999, 3:58 pm- picture 1
Hank -- 11/17/1999, 4:01 pm- Re: picture 1 (here)
Hank -- 11/17/1999, 4:06 pm- Re: picture 1 (here)
mike allen -- 11/18/1999, 1:04 pm- Re: picture 1 (here)
Tom Kurth -- 11/17/1999, 9:10 pm- Re: picture 1 (here)
Hank -- 11/17/1999, 10:40 pm
- Re: picture 1 (here)
Shawn Baker -- 11/17/1999, 5:38 pm- Re: picture 2
Hank -- 11/17/1999, 4:08 pm- Re: picture 3
Hank -- 11/17/1999, 4:10 pm- admiration
lee -- 11/18/1999, 1:28 pm- Re: Thanks
Hank -- 11/18/1999, 2:03 pm- Re: Thanks
lee -- 11/18/1999, 8:49 pm- Re: Raised bow and weathercocking
Mike Hanks -- 11/18/1999, 2:18 pm - Re: Raised bow and weathercocking
- Re: Thanks
- Re: Thanks
- admiration
- Re: picture 1 (here)
- Re: picture 1 (here)
- Re: picture 1 (here)
- picture 1