Dear Mike,

thanks for your remarks on Zimmerly's Article, particularly for point 3 which I had not noticed before.

As far as I know the connections of the single pieces have not been understood as a whole.

So I would like to draw your attention to some more points (which may have been discussed elsewhere already):

5) Stern section
Contrary to Zimmerly's desription (page 80) it seems that the stern blocks of the original were not directly lashed together. Instead, the lashing went through the stern piece (see photos on page 31). This kind of lashing is described in Morris' book, as well. The thin round deck beam near the stern blocks would allow for a well-defined small gap and for a lengthwise movement of the gunwales. The lashing around the thin deck beam holds the gunwales together.

6) Bow section
Near the bow blocks there is a thin round deck beam, as well. The lashing around it seems to have been similar to the stern (see top photos on page 31). This construction would allow for a small gap between the bow blocks, as well. Unfortunately, there is no description in Zimmerly's Article about the lashing of the bow blocks. Were the bow blocks of the original directly lashed together or was each bow block lashed to the upper bow piece? Zimmerly writes on page 80: "Lash the bow piece to both the gunwales and the bow block." I think, in accordance with Harvey, that the bow blocks were not lashed to the upper bow piece.

7) Keelson
Is it possible that a number of ribs near the bow and the stern were not lashed to the keelson? (At least, Zimmerly's photos don't show any lashings on the first bow rib or on the last three stern ribs.) The lower bow piece would then be able to move sideways and twist the keelson, as well. In that case, the smaller radius of the upper bow piece (compared to the larger radius of the horizontal bow plate) would even make more sense regarding twisting of the keelson.

I'm sure that the complex bow and stern construction add to the flexibility of the frame which I think was a major design goal. Just not easy to understand ...

Best,
Thomas

: Hello to all Baidarka builders and fans

: One of my main resources building my first baidarka is the article from David
: Zimmerly

: http://www.arctickayaks.com/PDF/ZimmerlyVarious/SBJ-1-HoleAleut.pdf

: which seems to be a widely accepted reference article and quoted in many
: building projects.

: On page 3 Zimmerly writes: "None of the internal structure needs to
: exactly copy that of the Aleut original."

: I want to draw your attention to the following points: 1) stern section
: in the picture just above that statement (page 3 top-right) you notice a
: clearance between the horizontal stern plates, aft deck stringer and the
: stern piece - more detail of the same on page 6, picture in 2nd row

: 2)cockpit - front side
: in picture page 6 bottom right you notice a clearance between the front deck
: stringer and the masik, accompanied by a similar clearance on the part of
: the stringer that dives beneath the cockpit coaming

: 3) bow section
: on page 6 top right you see a picture of the bow section which clearly shows
: that the radius of the bow piece is smaller that the radius of the
: horizontal bow plate - mind the shadow that the bow piece is throwing on
: the plate

: 4) dowels
: in the pictures quoted above we can see that both front and stern plates are
: doweled to the gunwales by only 1 dowel

: My interpretation is that

: A)
: all these clearances have been built on purpose to assist the flex of the
: boat - 1 & 2 together with the typical shafting and lashing of the
: keel seem to support the upward flex, while 3 supports a twisting flex of
: the front section.

: B)
: the single dowel to the bow and stern horizontal plates allow them to twist -
: whereas 2 or more dowels would block any movement of these parts.

: In none of the modern baidarka building descriptions I found sofar any
: mention about such clearances. They also frequently tell you to use 2
: dowels for the front and stern plates which would efficiently prevent the
: flex that was said to be a major advantage of baidarkas.

: Coming back to Zimmerly's statement about "exactly copying internal
: structures" my preliminary opinion is that this statement is wrong.

: What is your judgement about the above: Has this sofar been overlooked /
: neglected / found insignificant / am I misunderstanding something
: fundamentally here)

: Thanks for a good discussion and
: Kind regards from Austria
: Mike