: I've got to pipe up when people suggest one general kayak type does something
: radically different from another. I don't think you can generalize quite
: so specifically. The physics involved with a baidarka are exactly the same
: as for any other kind of kayak. If you make the shape below the water the
: same, the boats will handle flat water exactly the same regardless of the
: shape above the waterline. And the distribution of volume above the
: waterline can easily be manipulated to fall into any style designation
: without changing performance significantly.It is fairly trivial to make a
: boat that appears to be "Greenland" style have the same bottom
: shape generally attributed to baidarkas, and there are a lot of such
: designs available out there.

: This is true because there is no hard and fast definition of what a baidarka
: hull shape should be. A quick look through the documented Aleut
: "Baidarkas" show huge diversity. All you need to do to make a
: "baidarka" is give it a bifid bow and a funky truncated stern.
: Nor is there a hard and fast rule about what makes "Greenland"
: kayak, other than they generally have long overhangs at the bow and stern.
: Again, there is significant diversity in the hull shapes of kayaks from
: Greenland. These designations are simple ways of generally describing what
: the profile of the boat looks like and not very meaningful with regards to
: how the boat performs in the water.

: Interestingly enough, the reasons for the overhangs perform much the same
: function as the bifid bow and truncated stern. The overhangs provide
: reserve buoyancy above the waterline in the same way the upper jaw of the
: baidarka provides lift over big waves. And the overhang in the stern
: creates a means for have add flare in the stern which provides lift when
: surfing. You could take "Greenland" boat, chop off the bow and
: stern at ends of the waterline, and saw a notch into the bow and make a
: "Baidarka". This surgery would not significantly change the
: performance of the boat in rough conditions.

: So if you are looking for a boat with specific capabilities, don't believe it
: when people say "Greenland" boats are "X" and
: "Baidarkas" are "Y". Instead, take a close look at the
: individual designs in question. Look at hull shape below the waterline and
: how the volume is distributed above the waterline. Look at rocker and
: cross-sectional shape. Look at flare, deck shape and the plan shape. And
: if possible try the boat in question.

: If a given design performs nicely it is because it is a good design, not
: because it happens to fall in a particular class of general profile
: shapes.

As you couldn’t resist trying to throw a monkey wrench into the enthusiasm on this thread, I can’t resist a reply.

You are the first to point out that altering one characteristic such as making a boat longer for speed or wider for stability without considering other factors is ill conceived. I’ve heard you stress this point time and again on this BB.

Your comparative analysis of the below water hull characteristics of Greenland to Baidarka is superficial at very best.

The very radical difference in hull shape is IMMEDIATELY evident in overhead comparison of the two designs.

Chopping off this and chopping off that and sticking on another bow on and saying the differences in below water characteristics are trivial totally ignores the VERY BASIC underwater hull fullness carried to the bow a and the stern of the baidarka. This fullness continues UNDERWATER because the hull section is quite round. Though there are pronounced vee sections near the stems these vee sections quickly transform into very full rounded sections carried very far foreword and right to the stern, NOT AT ALL like Greenland hulls. To suggest the underwater hull would be similar if you cut off the overhanging stems of the Greenland boat works for you as long as you pretend that what is left of the Greenland boat isn’t 13’ long and shaped like a bath tub.

Your comments only display your unfamiliarity and lack of careful review of the baidarka hull design.

I have studied and built baidarkas for almost 10 years now. Though the example of baidarka design you site in David Zimmerly’s “Qajaq” book is the most widely available source of baidarka lines, I have had access to nearly a dozen different documented drawings of native kayaks AND actual collected native kayaks at museums. The variation from the “Qajaq” documented baidarka has been surprisingly small.

The point IS that most of the current baidarka designs ARE based on a very few documented native examples and that these new baidarkas display quite consistent characteristics.

The higher speed qualities of the baidarka design HAVE been supported by papers by George Dyson and others in the book “Contributions to Kayak Studies”, by the personal experience of many paddlers using the baidarka design for cruising and racing and by speeds clocked using GPS. While this may not be sufficient “empirical” evidence to overcome your personal bias, it is quite well accepted by those who have paddled baidarka designs.

The fact that the environmental conditions are very different around Greenland and the Aleutian Islands of the north Pacific obviously called for very difference boat designs.

The more I learn of Greenland, and study and paddle Greenland designs, I understand these boats were designed to handle strong winds in ice fields and paddling around ice bergs. Speed was not the greatest design factor in a kayak that was used often to transport a hunter to wait at a seal’s blow hole. Paddling in big seas was not common. I would like to hear comments on these points from some of the paddlers on this BB who have been to Greenland and have talked with Greenland paddlers as to weather I’m in error here.

The Aleut baidarka was designed for open seas, with no, or very little ice and big waves. Speed was a highly important design factor as all hunting was done from the boat in pursuit of game.

There is no need to discount or discredit baidarkas because they are a faster design. The history of recreational sea kayaking started in Britain. The British chose the nearest arctic kayak as their model which was from Greenland. Few current modern Greenland derived kayaks display the very hard chine of Greenland native boats, suggesting modifications were desirable when the design was forced into new paddling conditions. The Greenland derived sea kayak design prevails because it fits our archetype of a sea kayak through the fluke of recreational sea kayaking history.

The Alaskan baidarka design is not a better kayak than the Greenland, though it may be a bit faster.

All the best,

Rob Macks
Laughing Loon CC&K
www.LaughingLoon.com