posted 03-02-2004 07:47 PM         

Guillemot Kayaks

eh.......Or as Tom said "...not very inspired"

So, no offence Guillemot Kayaks....we know you have the skill and the vision so why not do this to the one beautifully desplayed on your intro page: A truly high performance sea kayak? We're worth it...Really

posted 03-03-2004 09:16 AM         

The outer hull is almost done and I'll start work on the cockpit and tankwell this weekend. The hardest part about developing one of these is the method for installing the scuppers. It wasn't easy to come up with a way to make them sturdy and easy enough to install for the amatuer builder.

Eventually, I'll have 4-5 models to choose from with 3 lengths for each model. The first one is along the lines of a Tarpon. The next will be similar to a Prolwer or Cobra.

I saw the web page and picture you have listed a couple of months ago but as far as I know, no plans are for sale yet. Hopefully soon because Guillemot does some very nice work on sea kayaks.

Mine will be more functional but I try to include some elegance.

posted 03-03-2004 01:52 PM         

It seems that not a week goes by without seeing a post here or on pnet by a SOT driver moving to a SINK in order to be able to gain the advantages (light weight, speed, and paddling efficiency) afforded by glass, composite, or wooden SINKs.

I'm beggining to think I'm going to get a lot older waiting for a North American manufacturer to take us seriously.

Regarding the wooden SOT you pictured - no specs but it looks w-i-d-e. Doesn't appear to be self bailing either and with such a deep cockpit it better be, or what's the point!

Regarding JEM's problem with making the scuppers doable for the home builder, I suggest he look at sailboat hardware designed for small boats. Selfbailing cockpits are hardly a new and novel idea - there is plenty of "off the shelf" thru hull fittings and tubing that could be easily adapted to the task.

Regarding JEM's designs "like a Tarpon", "like a Prowler or Corbra" - IMHO "like too wide & like too short"! How about something at least 17' long, no wider than 24 inches and maybe a semi vee hard chine flared hull profile, with a resonably deep (dry) self bailing cockpit, bow and stern hatches, and an in-cockpit day hatch?

posted 03-03-2004 02:24 PM         

If there's enough demand and consensus on design, I'll gladly design a SOT that is a pure sea kayak. I like to think my design will address the non-traditional boats along with having some traditional designs.

I wouldn't mind getting the input right here on Top Kayaker.net but I'm not sure if Tom would find this acceptable. Tom, how about it? A group project in this section or perhaps in a different forum?

As far as scuppers, I wanted to design something someone could make completely on their own without having to buy specialty items. I have an easy method. Just a matter of documenting easy to follow instructions. It's all coming soon I promise!

I will investigate some off-the-shelf item and see if I can make them work.

Thanks!

posted 03-03-2004 02:29 PM         

Your design idea for

"something at least 17' long, no wider than 24 inches and maybe a semi vee hard chine flared hull profile, with a resonably deep (dry) self bailing cockpit, bow and stern hatches, and an in-cockpit day hatch?"

is certainly doable. I'd like to hear from Tom to see if it's ok to discuss it here first.

posted 03-05-2004 09:14 AM         

1) I'm not a wooden boat manufacturer. I'm a designer of canoes and kayaks that can be made by the amateur boat builder. I do build custom boats for some people. The price is higher as you said. Some people value that, some don't. But I build mostly for prototyping purposes. There are a couple of builders who build for retail out of designs similar to mine.

2) I wouldn't call them wooden boats. My designs call for a composite lay-up. It's a fiberglass sandwich using wood as the core instead of foam. Stronger, lighter (because it requires less resin the make). Generally speaking, I think you could build a SOT of this design for about the same price you’d pay for an Extreme or Prowler. Your own labor is free. Depends on the materials you select. You can also build a 16’ and have it weigh around 45 pounds.

My designs call for BS1008 grade marine plywood. It's a grade of plywood that will not rot if built properly (and by properly, I don't mean taking extreme measure. Just ensuring everything is done according to simple directions). There's boats of this design sea-worthy for 30+ years. If you crack the hull or scratch it deep enough, you will have to repair it or it will fall apart. But so will any other boat.

3) They do require additional care. But with advances in fiberglass cloth and using graphite coatings, they are fast approaching being just as durable as the plastic models. It is still, like all boats, a compromise. These style are not for everyone much like a Tarpon or Extreme would be for everyone.

4) I'm not claiming these will replace roto-molded models. But these designs are superior in some ways and inferior in others. It all depends on what you want.

I'm not trying to jump on anyone. Just want it to be clear where I'm coming from.

Thanks!

posted 03-06-2004 09:43 AM         

Yes, JEM, all input here on this acceptable!

If there isn't a big enough market for high performance touring sots JEM's idea to provide plans for the home builder may be one good solution. I am grateful he is listening with an open mind. We would like to do a special "issue" of this site on wood kayak efforts sometime this summer or fall.

No hurry. This is something that should take some quality time in the hope of producing excellent results.

Two things:

Bonneville is right...unfortunately diving & fishing off a kayak was Royak's first inspiration for the sot...touring next with Niemier...and if you read some of the articles on designers, Jim3727 you'll see that beautiful Kevlar touring kayaks were made in the usa by Paul Cronin...but when a businessman took over his "Hop On Top" (Heritage) he made short, efficient work of such inspiring kayaks. But we think when he did that he lost the edge that Paul’s boats provided the company in the industry. So did many of the people express that used to work there. We heard that Paul had gone to Europe designing for a company over there. Don't know much about that.

Our friend Bob Twogood in Hawaii who took over Tom's class at U of Hawaii, has been building fiberglass touring sots for many many years and sustains a small shop in a very paradise location and a popular following.

I for one would appreciate a kit. Spoke with Eric Schade of Shearwater Boats (brother of Nick at Guillemont) at a show last week and he also uses this type of fiberglass technology on his stitch & glue kayaks and is willing to custom build.

posted 03-06-2004 11:30 AM         

I do not mind "furthering" the sport of Sit-on-top Kayaking here on the Forum, even if it does dip into the realm of commercializm. So, go ahead and communicate, the folks here do seem interested and are looking for something new in SOTs.

What I do not what to have happen is for this board to turn into free advertising space for commercial concerns.

There are oppurtinitys to advertise on this website and I welcome any who would like to read our online media kit.

posted 03-06-2004 11:35 AM         

Easily removeable scupper plugs are simple to make. Just have to carve some cheap pool noodles. Doesn't take much more than a saw blade, drill, sandpaper, bungy cord, and a couple of wide flat washers. I plan on showing how to do that on my site for free.

As far as kevlar, it definately can be done. But at a price. Kevlar is about 4-5 times more expensive than fiberglass cloth. Also, it requires vacuum bagging to install. When you buy a kevlar boat, you're paying for the increased material price but also the skill and equipment to install it.

------------------
Matt Langenfeld - JEM Watercraft

posted 03-06-2004 11:53 AM         

I've got a Kynsna Isthmus -a sleek glass Sothe African 21"X17' SOT that is really fast, really responsive -and REALLY TWITCHY!

AS has been bandied about on these pahes, I and the I are have this sort of extended gat aqquainted period, and I've been out on ot 4 times -twice in calm waters, where I managed to stay on it, and twice in a chop, during which I swam 7 times.

A BIG reason? The seat is elevated to just about the waterline, maybe a hair above it -and I'm 205 these days... Much of my mass is above my waist -my legs are the same length as Sally's, and she's 5-7 to my 6-0 -and that high center of mass due to the seat at or above the waterline makes for a very precarious ride.

I'd GLADLY have a bit of a wet but and be more stable AND go fast, rather than continually have to do the tightrope walk such a boat width-length-seat height-paddler height combination absolutely requires!

So think about lowering your seat some -or at least provide a "B" model to the model "A"'s high, dry seat.

Hey, we're kayakers! We're on the water -we dress for the water -getting wet should be no biggie!

And that way, you can provide a welcome, high performance, and much more easily drivable design to quickly and beautifully -and LITERALLY!

Paddle "on"!

-Frank in Miami

posted 03-06-2004 12:15 PM         

I have the prototype Cape Fear hull 95% finished as a SIT right now. I'll start the SOT mods this weekend.

I was planning on stacking some wood or something to give me the equivilant seat height and then take her out for a trial runs befoe converting to a SOT. I'm 6'3, 215 with athletic build. My mass is moslty evenly proportioned with a little more on top.

The Cape Fear prototype is also wider than our project here so I could get away higher seating position. But 2 different seat heights is something to defiately consider.

I'll start some rough draft ideas for what we're dicussing here and try to post some images.

Questions: Midship height? Bow height? Stern height? Symetrical or asymetrical? Knife bow entry or more of a canoe curve?

posted 03-06-2004 11:51 PM         

I'm having a couple of thoughts regarding the number of panels for assembly.

The bottom image is a sample cross section. Note how the top image has the same hull shape except one less side hull panel. Easier to assemble. But remember, it's only one (2 total) additional panel and you only have to build the yak once!

Both will have the same wetted surface area at the waterline.

The top image will have better reserve buoyancy and reserve stability but will have a little extra wetted surface area if the yak is leaned and that extra point area dips into the water. Over 17 feet, that extra wetted surface area adds up.

I may create 2 different boats with the top being for someone who values the reserve stability and the bottom for a more pure touring style yak.

Part of this project is elegance of design. My opinion is the bottom image will look better as a complete hull.

------------------
Matt Langenfeld - JEM Watercraft

[This message has been edited by JEM (edited 03-07-2004).]

posted 03-11-2004 02:03 PM         

first pass. You have to use your imagination a little to picture the cockpit. Drew this up over lunch and was pressed for time.

Rendered images aren't the easiest to judge by but any thoughs?

------------------
Matt Langenfeld - JEM Watercraft

posted 03-13-2004 09:11 PM         

One, those beams are BEAMY -any way you can reduce the panels to get the designs down to maybe 24" wide? I mean, my S-Pro's 26", and I'm thinking 'wouldn't it have been great if thay could've shave another mere inch off each side, made it 24" across...'

I can see three ways -reduce the panel widths on both the bottom and lower side panels, reduce the width on the bottom panels alone, or increase the jardness of the chine coming up from the bottom panel.

For the latter, it'd seem to also require commensurately reducing the side panel and top-side panel in the multi-chine model, maybe pulling the entire package "up" by retaining the same vertical side length, or byu reducing all panels.

For the narrower, harder chine model, pull the max beam points in, increase the chine, and thus narrow the boat.

Second, you might want to harden the chine, regardelss of the narrownes of the boat. A harder chine promotes secondary stability, and when appropriately designed, and appropriately employed, allows for quicker, edged turning.

You're running swedeform designs. As the world knows, I paddle an S-Pro, and it's fishform with a lot of bow volume. I'd LOVE to narrow the bow on the Old Pro, and to rework the hull shape of the prow to make it more of a cleaver than a bludgeoner (tho' it DOES promote bow bouyancy, good for anti-perling and for crossing surf zones).

But I think a symmetric design is better -it provides better handling for turning, and I think symmetrics are just better balanced boats all round as well. My Isthmus is symmetric, and when I'm not swimming, it's a VERY responsive boat, much more than the Old Pro. And even symmetrics should be able to accomodate a TW if you're considering one as a design option.

I DO like your 3-D renderings -they're very good for gettying a feel for the boat. May I suggest, tho', that you include either a ruler ot some other guage (a 6' tall paddler?) to let us get a better feel for the dimensions?

AT any rate, my 2 cents worth. Thanks for you work so far -progress, Pilgrim...

And maybe one of these days, when all is said & done, someone will actually build (one of) your (possibly multiple?) designs and -very happily! -

Paddle on!

-Frank in Miami

posted 03-14-2004 09:32 AM         

Thanks for the input. Your suggestions can easily be accomplished. I'll have tankwell and hatch options.

I'm not sure I entirely understand you stating hard-chines offering more secondary stability.

Here's what my experience has been:

Hard-chine secondary stability is like a rolling wheel. If the wheel is perfectly round, it'll rolling smoothly. If it's shaped like a hexagon or octogon, the wheel will want to rest on it's flat spots and will not want to balance on a point.

Hard-chine boats are the same. They will have a sweet spot where they are the most balanced and stable. That spot or angle will feel very stable once you reach it. But the paddler will have to get a feel for where that spot is. Until then, the boat may feel unstable.

A perfectly round hull would feel extremely unstable. The "wheel" will roll TOO efficiently. That's why hulls are not typically shaped that way. They have some oblong or egg shape.

Anyway, now that I re-read everything, I think we're saying the same thing.

Anyone else have input regarding hull width?

I intend to make this design available as a set of plans for the amatuer builder. I'll do my traditional dual purpose hull and offer it as a SIS and SOT.

posted 03-14-2004 12:07 PM         

I concur with your thoughts about the hard chine design, particularly as to how it affects stability and I understand its utility in designing a boat for home building with the stitch and glue method.

posted 03-15-2004 09:57 PM         

I'm concerned about the high bow lift but if this going to be an ocean tourer, you'll need some slicing action.

Thoughts?

------------------
Matt Langenfeld - JEM Watercraft

[This message has been edited by JEM (edited 03-15-2004).]

posted 03-16-2004 03:20 AM         

What a beautiful, elegant-looking SOT! The top-down view emphasizes it's graceful, slim, flowing lines, and the beam view demonstrates a nice-looking, mildly rockered side profile. I believe the 3/4 head-on view artificially emphasizes the bow rise and prow upsweep -I wouldn't worry about that perspective if the other two are true. Thanks for the dimension lines, too!

Now the trick is going to be in the seating and TW functionality...

The best seats -for me -are those whose conformation is like that of my S-Pro -smooth, rounded, comfortable, and deep enough to need nothing more than a back band as opposed to a full seat -and more importantly, that you don't need a full seat back.

Indeed, I managed the Bacall Race in slop without the back band -while I most certainly do NOT want to do something idiotic like that again any time soon(!), that I got out and walked with minimal back stretching (or creaking, *L*) is testament to the appropriateness of the seat design in my opinion.

Now the S-Pro has twin seat scuppers, which, in combination with the seat's depth (and my weight at around 205) acounts for its wet ride with me in it. My Isthmus fits snug and, while higher in the boat (and the seat bottom is farther up off the waterline) -when I've shipped water, it hasn't filled the seat because of the even more snug seat fit (and/or that I'm filling it up, *L*) as well as the more shallow design than the Pro's seat -even though it doesn't have a scupper.

I wonder if you can make a/the wooden equivalent of a snug glass/plastic seat, WITHOUT scuppers, that will be that magic combination of depth, dryness, snugness and support...???

I also wonder if you could leave the "seat box" open, and the builder would sculpt a big hard foam block to be the seat+console arrangement, and drop it in...

Speaking of consoles -don't forget a console -to separate the legs and reduce the volume of the 'seat box' (and therefore less ability to hold water if swamped or flooded, or tipped and attmpting a remount), and to provide some room for accessories:

Scupper the footwell areas, and put in the console. Dimension the console to be able to accept a depression to hold a can or bottle in a foam jacket, and to mount a compass or GPS, and to possibly mount a tray for the anglers among us, or to rest a camera for the photogs among us.

On to the TW...

So far, so good -but this one WILL absolutely absolutely haveto have scuppers! I'd make it out of 2 panels in a very slight vee, angled towards the cockpit, with the scuppers at that end, to aid in draining. Make the vee as shallow as possible to increase the utility of the space.

Indeed, the way this is shaping up, you just may want to consider a 3rd model -the convertible. This would have a tankweel, but also be fitted with a TW cover, to cover the TW over if the paddler doesn't need the extra space, or to help in big or sloppy water by keeping the TW dry -or at least relatively so.

Finally, the gunwales: these will help define the interior seat width, the tankwell width, and strengthen the yak. Tres important, I would think, amigo. Gunwales would look, to my inexperienced nalval architect/yak designer's eye, as the final piece of the puzzle "design-wise".

Then comes the nitty-gritty of how to actually cut it up into a stitch-and-glue fiberglass yak based on a thin veneer "frame" upon which to lay the glass -along with the stems & stern posts, ribs for the seating area and TW area strengthening, and crafting th blueprints to make all the peices maych up...

Piece of cake, eh? LOL!

But continue, please! It's getting to look delicious in its design, and exterior lines, and overall dimensions.

You DO know, don't you, that as soon as you actually DO this one, there'll be a clamoring for one 2" narrower and a foot longer, right...?

Maybe there's a woodworker out there among us who'll build one, and let us all know how it feels to sit in a speedy SAG SOT and REALLY

Paddle on!

-Frank in Miami

posted 03-16-2004 10:35 AM         

I like the latest renderings with the dimensions. At this point I don't have any further suggestions regarding lenght, beam, hull design, etc. I also appreciate that you are designing the yak to be built with either a rear hatch OR tankwell.

On to the cockpit. I realize that the contoured shapes of most rotomolded SOTs would be nigh on to impossible for the home builder to replicate in wood. That said you've got to have more than just a box.

1. the seat area needs to be "segregated" from the rest of the cockpit - slanted with the aft lower than the front - you may want the aft section of the seat below the waterline while keeping the front section above!

2. As for the remainder of the cockpit, the front edge of the seat should be the highest point of the cockpit floor and it should slope downward from there to the point where it meets the front bulkhead - the scupper(s) should be placed at this point. Obviously, none of this area should be below the waterline.

3. PLEASE consider a center console extending from the front bulkhead to a point just in front of the seat. You can see this design feature on a number of SOTs (WS Freedom, Heritage's Seadart, Nomad and Expedition, among others.) Consoles have a lot of utility: a place to secure stuff like compasses, GPS, water bottles etc. A "day hatch" or access port built into the console would also be very desirable. Also, I suspect a well designed console could add to the structural rigidity and integrity of the design. However IMHO the main reason to incorporate a center console is to REDUCE COCKPIT VOLUME limiting the amount of water which could enter in a capsize or swamping if someone was paddling with the scuppers closed. Even with the scuppers opened the reduced volume would aid anyone attempting to roll the boat.

Thanks for the opportunity to put in another 2 cents worth. Keep up the good work!

posted 03-16-2004 11:35 AM         

4 scuppers total for the cockpit. 2 in the footwells and 2 in the seat area. The 2 in the seat area will be optional or could be plugged with carved pool noodles. Cheap and easy.

The cockpit won't be completely flat. A small lateral ridge will be included for more comfortable seating and also to help contain/channel any water. The lowest part of the seat and footwell area will be at the waterline as CHPayton said.

Console: Super easy to make an customize your own. I'm also plan on having a storage hatch opening up to the lower hull in the cockpit. I'll show how to make your own or maybe buy one from Malibu or Cobra and install. I have a method for install Werner footbraces without having to drill through the hull to. (not a new idea).

Tankwell will have a scupper. Now here's a question: Why have the scupper toward the cockpit? I would think momentum would rather have the water drain aft. Insight on this one would be appreciated.

Slight V bottom already planned for in the TW. A TW cover is doable. I think it was Tom who even mentioned creating a removal TW pod.

Gunwalls? Perhaps a tighter veiw of the cockpit will make my configuration idea more clear.

Upper left is looking from front to back into the cockpit. Upper right is rear to front looking at the console. Anything more the 4" wide and it'll be too tight for feet and footbraces. Bottom is from the front looking into the tankwell.

No scuppers show here. Takes time to draw them little suckers! ;P

And finally, you hit the nail on the head. Easy to design the hull. The hard part is making clear and complete instructions.

Thanks for the input.

------------------
Matt Langenfeld - JEM Watercraft

posted 03-16-2004 02:52 PM         

At the 4" waterline, she displace up to 300 lbs minus hull weight.

PPI (which is the amount of weight required to sink the yak 1" lower in the water) is 150 lbs. That means she'll displace 450 lbs at the 5" waterline minus hull weight.

Tankwell displacement volume: 93 lbs
Cockpit displacement volume: 232 lbs
Console displacement volume: 23 lbs.

So what does all this mean?

Scenario #1:
If Frank, at his alleged 200 lbs, were to paddle it, he could take 50 lbs worth of gear, have the hull weigh 50 lbs, and he'd be nice and dry with the scuppers being right at the waterline. (I'll have a better feel for estimated hull weight in another week or 2. Testing my spreadsheet accuracy)

Scenario #2:
That ski boat doesn't see Frank until the last second and narrowly misses him. But it swamps the entire hull because of the wake. So the tankwell is full of water, the cockpit is full but 50% of that is Frank. So we have:

Frank: 200
Hull: 50
TW: 93 (The gear will occupy some volume but let's just called it even)
Cockpit @ 50%: 116
Gear: 50
Console: -23

Total: 486. She'll sink just over an inch deeper until the scuppers drain.

posted 03-19-2004 09:30 PM         

But I get your drift, or displacement.

Look at the S-Pro cockpit for it's fine, deep seat and it's nice, snug fit. Do NOT look at it for scuppering! If your boat-to-be behaves as described, it'll be mostly moot, anyway. SHould you take a wave, make the cockpit snug enough to minimize how much water will actually get -and stay -in the seat area.

And about seats... Looks like you'll need to use minicell foam to achieve the same anatomy conformity as opposed to wood -multiple compound curves is NUTHIN I -or MOST -would want to do...

Well, so far, so good. Draw up those plans, get "The Wooden Boat" crew to build it, and Greg Barton to paddle it, and you'll have a design WELL worth it to

Paddle on!

posted 04-01-2004 12:46 PM         

Want some opinion regarding the bow: A fuller bow as it's currently drawn or perhaps more of a sea kayak knifed-style bow?

posted 04-01-2004 05:46 PM         

Are you asking as a matter of "looks" or in terms of performance?

As far as looks go it's a matter of "eye of the beholder". Personally, I like the longer leaner look, but I also don't see anything I dislike in the renderings you posted above.

If it's a matter of performance, how about giving us a short summary of how you think the different styles will effect the boat's behavior.

And while you're at it, since it's designed to be home built, what bow style would be "easier" for the rank beginner builder.

Craig

posted 04-01-2004 06:51 PM         

One of the trade offs would be buoyancy. The fuller bow would support more.

I was thinking a fuller bow because this is not really a true touring sea kayak. But I did want to get the opinion of those participating.

A tourer...which I'll do a version of eventually...would be slightly more narrow and at least 18'.

The fuller bow will be less tricky to build.

posted 04-02-2004 08:55 AM         

Having come to my Isthmus via first a Malibu II and then a Scupper Classic, and finally my beloved infamous Scupper Pro, I know full, nay -bulbous! - bows! They ARE nice for riding swells, and the high-volume front end helps those who surf avoid perling -but those same bows can be downright "painful" in a chop -they are a handful -an ARMful -a whole PADDLER full! - in a chop -and there is much MUCH energy expended in smashing through...

We are looking for a highER, if not just plain high, performance SOT, are we not?

If you look at the newer designs in SOTs, you'll see a trend in the main stream maugfacturers to sharpen the prows of their boats -the Perception Napali and Illusion, the OK Mars & Venus and Prowler, the WS Tarpons -all incorporate to one degree or another a cleaving prow.

And so should you.

At the very VERY least, do NOT round the design already exhibited any more! I, for one, would appreciate a ssignificantly harper entry a la the more traditional SINK prow designs.

Yes, I know, compound curves and wide panels make for strange bedfellows in the hands of a DIY backyard boatbuilder. But I'm certain there's a happier medium that will suffice -6 panels instead of 4? -8 panels instead of 6? -to craft a decently shrp prow,

And my Isthmus, and the QCCs, all have more plumb bows than the classic arctic designs, and they are very fast boats -so perhaps that might be considered as that's probably an easier approach as well.

Progress, pilgrim, progress...

One of these days one of these guys WILL see the light of day, and someone WILL get out there on it, and

Paddle on!

posted 04-02-2004 05:32 PM         

I think Frank's comments pretty much speak for me as well.

I am a bit curious about the "number of panels" issue tho. I spent a few minutes checking out designs on some of the SINK "build a kit" web sites and noticed a number of yak's in the 17'x 22" to 24" range that seemed to have both a sharper narrower prow and fewer panels than your current design. They were significantly harder chined as well.

Do fewer panels generally equate with easier construction? or is this a dumb question?

posted 04-02-2004 07:57 PM         

Using the stitch and glue construction method, you don't have to have any special skills or tools. No scarfing of wood joints or running wood strip on a router or jointer. Hand saw(or jig saw) and a drill is all you need.

If it's your first, I'd seriously consider building a simple pirogue first to get a feel for boat building. Yes I know, what do you want with a floating box? But the experience you'll gain will help you build your "good one" lighter and better.

posted 04-24-2004 09:20 PM         

Time to start doing some serious work on our project here.

------------------
Matt Langenfeld - JEM Watercraft