> hello nick (& the rest),

> I read your response here & I'm surprised !

> I respect your opinion. I believe you know about kayak building/ designing
> much more than I do, but something here isn't clear to me.

> just like you said, the construction method in discussion works very well
> with the design method you described, & that's probably the way the
> inuits & aleuts did it.

> but aren't we trying to create a kayak with certain behavior
> charachteristics ? a certain amout of initial/secondary stability ? a
> certain amount of bow/stern floation ? prismatic coefficient ? etc'.
> aren't we looking for a design method that will give us a better
> prediction of the behavior of the future kayak, than the prediction we get
> with the inuit/aleut method ?

> my theory says: make a kayak that will give you the behavior/responses
> you're looking for. not the look. worry about the look when you buy a car.

> what will he do if he puts his new kayak on the water for the first time,
> paddle it for 20 minutes & say: "this thing sucks ! my plastic is
> much better ! " or should I ask, how can he refrain from getting into
> such situation ?

> am I the only one ?

> is my theory wrong ? (no, I don't intend to change it)

> erez

I'm no expert either, but I believe that once you know how certain aspects of hull (& deck) shape effect performance, you can make these modifications in an actual kayak and see the results. I thinks that some of the Inuits and Alutes had a very good idea of how their kayaks would perform. I don't "know" this to be true, but in seeing some of their designs, they obviously knew a little about making a good performing kayak. A lot of the British kayaks keep going back to the southwest Greenland style to get their desired results. Some examples are the Annas Acuta and the Greenlander.

I just put the Plywood Walrus in the water for the first time and was not too suprised at the performance of it. I looked at it's shape compared to my Arctic Tern and said "it will track better, have better initial stability, less secondary, and carve a sharper turn". I haven't gotten a total feel for it yet, but it seems to hold up to my design predictions. I want to test it out in some more extreme conditions to find out more, but I don't feel like I will run into many surprises.

The way to avoid getting into the situation of not liking your "design" is to paddle some similar kayaks, learn about how the shapes control performance, and modify accordingly. A great part about this design method is that the kayaks don't cost much to build this way. If you are unhappy with it, just build another. The second one will take less time and will probably perform better.

Hull design software will only tell you so much. A knowledgeable designer without software could easily design a better kayak than a novice with software. The software is just a tool to design it faster. Yes it can greatly enhance the ease of designing, but what you really have to know is what you want the kayak to perform like.

Sorry I just got going and started rambling.

Mike