Force 5 vs Aquanaut HELP!

[subaruguru]

I think I've decided to sell my Looksha IV HV, and have finally narrowed the replacement search down to the Impex Force V and the Aquanaut.

I want to preserve the Looksha's quiet glide and good speed, solid secondary, but don't need the volume (I'll probably NEVER go camping), and am sick of the wind-cocking and big-guy's beam.

Needing to get my booted feet (12) to fit eliminates many contenders, including the Force 4.

I want an efficient fast hull that'll safely get me into Level III trips, and is reasonably easy to roll. (Thanks, BobB for breaking the curse on my Looksha!)

My demos of the Force 5 and Aquanaut are weeks apart, and limited to flat water. Although I may be able to borrow a Force 5 to compare simultaneously with David's Aquanaut, I doubt I'll be able to compare them in "conditions" beyond the luck (?) of some wind on the Mystic next week.

Has anyone closely compared these two 'yaks?

I'm attracted to the 5's speed and "creamy" edging feel, but wonder if it'll be as seaworthy in big swell as the Aquanaut? Is the latter therefore considerably slower because of shorter WL and more rocker?

Should I care? I like a quiet bow and good speed (so I hate the Chathams!), but want much more responsiveness than say an Epic 18 or Q700.

Also, where's best place to get a deal on the Aquanaut? If I go with the Force 5 I'll get it at CRCK.

Thanks for all input.

Ern

[shewhorn]

Can't help with the boat dillema but on price if you don't mind a trip up to Concord, NH give Contoocook River Canoe Company a call.

http://www.contoocookcanoe.com/contoocook.html

(603) 753-9804

They had a glass Aquanaut in stock the last time I was there. Give me a ring if you head up if you're into a paddle up the Contoocook.

Cheers, Joe

[EEL]

Since the Force 5 has the same hull as the Force 4, my experience in one and my limited experience in an Aquanaut might be relevant.

>I want an efficient fast hull that'll safely get me into

>Level III trips, and is reasonably easy to roll.

Both will do this for you without a sweat. In fact, I rather imagine both are more than capable of loafing through any conditions you will encounter on any formal NSPN trip outside of rock grdening and surfing. After all, both are designed as go anywhere expedition boats.

>Has anyone closely compared these two 'yaks?

At this level, your personal preferences and physical fit are really the deciding factors and the opinions of others really don't matter much unless they are not only your size, but have similar preferences in boats.

>I'm attracted to the 5's speed and "creamy" edging feel, but

>wonder if it'll be as seaworthy in big swell as the

>Aquanaut?

What is "creamy edging"?

I have found the Force to have a nice blend of responsiveness and unflapability. As a result it is an enjoyable day boat for long/fast lets see and explore some territory trips as opposed to play amongst rocks and surf trips. More so to me than the Aquanaut, but talking personal preference stuff not performance stuff. Not sure what your concerns are with swells, but if you mean running down or quartering 15-20K wind in swells of say 5-6' that are just on the edge of breaking, I know the Force is solid in such stuff. You can just pick your course and paddle away to maintain speed as opposed to spending time and energy dealing with a contrary boat. I have also found the Force well mannered when paddling across/down/through smaller breaking waves. Others have told me the Aquanaut is great as well. I think the Force is a more lively boat and that may or may not appeal to you.

>Is the latter therefore considerably slower

>because of shorter WL and more rocker?

No.

>Should I care?

No.

>I like a quiet bow...

The Force will slap or pound more on chop or when going over large, steep swell compared to the Aquanaut. I have been told when heavily loaded a Force does not do this and will slice through waves which makes for a wet ride.

I am just a beginner with limited experience so take all this with a grain of salt or two. I believe there are boats whose personality is that they enable you to easily survive "conditions" and there are boats that perform well in "conditions" and some boats do rather well in both departments. By perform well I mean you can maintain/change course and speed inspite of "conditions" while traveling as opposed to playing in rough stuff. By survive I mean the boat will basically take care of you and will likely be a good play boat in rough stuff, but may not be all that good at performing in conditions, I cannot speak to the Aquanaut as I have never had it in "conditions", but the Force will perform well in adverse stuff and it will not do you wrong either. Its a sweet boat, but then I own one so natuarally I would think that.

Have you tried a NF Shadow?

Ed Lawson

[Gillian]

Hey there, might be a silly question but are you going for fiberglass or plastic?? The aquanaut composite vs. RM are VERY different. I have the RM which you're welcome to borrow any time to try out and I know Joan has the fiberglass Aquanaut which I've paddled before and I'm sure you could arrange something with her . . .

[Joan_H]

Hey Ernie:

You're welcome to try mine anytime.

It's the prolite type. I'll be at Chebacco tonight if you want to borrow it.

[Dee Hall]

Ernie,

Both of these boats will be very secure in rough conditions, but they are going to behave very differently. The Aquanaut is going to be easier to maneuver while the Force will require edging to turn. That is be the trade off for the Force being such a fast boat. You certainly won't need that speed for Level III trips.

That said, the Force series are absolutely delightful to paddle between their speed, stability, and lack of wind-related behavior. If I was expecting a very long paddle in high wind and any type of waves, I would pick this boat. If I was taking a bunch of unknown paddlers on a trip with me that I might be rescuing left and right, I wouldn't.

-Dee

[subaruguru]

Hi Ed,

By "creamy" edging I'm trying to describe the smoothness of the lean from horizontal to up on edge. The Force simply had a continuousness that was more comfy than the step-function feel of the harder chines of my Looksha (or the Shadow) for example. The Aquanaut also felt this way, and even more responsive, but I've also just been told that the Aquanaut can easily fool you once you're up there with false confidence and maybe dump you (me!) more easily. Since I don't have a roll I prefer to stay upright.

Must say that the Aquanaut's keyhole cockpit initially felt a bit tight, but the thigh brace purchase is exquisite because of it. The Force's seat and thigh braces appear to need some work (a common complaint).

I've got to compare them in the same session.

I'm ONLY considering the lighter layups, as that 5-6lbs is important to me as I solo-load on OBs broadside.

Thanks for your cogent comments!

[scamlin]

Ernie:

Can't add much to Ed's comments. I paddle the Avocet which is Valley's 16' version of the same hull. The secondary is indeed creamy and continuous; the final stability, while not huge, is very predictable. I have paddled the Aquanaut and it is similar. You shouldn't capsize unexpectedly once you learn the boat.

I would also echo Ed's judgment: since both boats are both so capable in all conditions, you should consider use and comfort.

The Force 5 has less rocker and therefore is marginally faster and tracks better and needs more edge to turn. The Aquanaut has more rocker and therefore while fast, tracks a bit looser but turns easier. So are do you want to emphasize play or miles?

As for comfort, with my size 10 shoes, I find the Avocet's deck is a bit low, so I have to splay my toes to the side more than I'd like. Result? I get knee pain after a couple of hours of hard paddling because my knee joint is not properly aligned. So which boat has more room to properly align you size 12 shoes? You won't really know until you've paddled a full day in each.

Can't go too far wrong with either boat.

Scott

[EEL]

>Hi Ed,

>By "creamy" edging I'm trying to describe the smoothness of

>the lean from horizontal to up on edge. The Force simply had

>a continuousness that was more comfy than the step-function

>feel of the harder chines of my Looksha (or the Shadow) for

>example.

Got it, and yes it will rotate about its length axis very easily. Actually it will rotate 360 degrees very easily so it not just to an edge.

>Force's seat and thigh braces appear to

>need some work

The 5 has a huge cockpit. For folks around 6 feet and 180 plus or minus 20 the 4 has a great stock fit. Today I looked at a 4 used by a BCU L4 coach of around that size. It was absolutely stock. Of course some prefer a loose fit too.

>I've got to compare them in the same session.

Yes, only you know what boat works for you.

It is always ineresting how people differ in their impressions of boats since they are reporting how the boat worked for them. Sometimes I read impressions and wonder if we paddled the same boat. Of course they would say the same about my impressions. One thing I discovered at the Symposium in Bar Harbor is how sensitive all these boats are to trim and weight shifts so the boats really do perform differently for people of different sizes who sit/paddle differently

Ed Lawson

[subaruguru]

Well, my checking the stability of the extreme edge of David's new Aquanaut resulted in quite an unexpected splash Tuesday, to the chuckle of all. Not even time enough to brace. Hmmm!

Interestingly a seeminingly-neutral response from a Canadian seller of both Impex and Valley suggested that the Forces are unidimensional trackers and that the Aquanauts are much better in conditions. Comments seem unbiased commercially given that they admit that their USD-purchased Valleys are overpriced compared to the locally-produced Impexes, so they know they'll never sell me a Valley boat.

Dave at CRCK's smilingly recalled that ALL Valley boats have "surprises" at the limit, although admitting that they're really comfy.

They'd love to sell me their new Force V, and the red deck/yellow beltline isn't so bad, actually. But they seem to like them for good reasons too.

I'll try to paddle a V again tomorrow and see if the edge seems more predictable...or "harder".

And no, my size 12 boots don't fit in the Force IV...and barely into the Aquanaut.

In comparison to my Looksha HV's hard chines' "stepped edges", which I liken to stretching a rubber band to finally get up to a hard lean (which seems tremendously protective in 5-6 footers), I AM seduced by that "creaminess continuousness" of both the AN and the Force 5, but would like to feel that I have a bit of protection at the endpoint...at least until I learn to roll effortlessly, or be bracing continuously?! Thanks for putting up with me....

[EEL]

>

>Interestingly a seeminingly-neutral response from a Canadian

>seller of both Impex and Valley suggested that the Forces

>are unidimensional trackers and that the Aquanauts are much

>better in conditions.

I would not put much faith in that assesment of the boats. I'm not saying anything against the Aquanaut, its a great boat. I have always found my RM Avocet to be solid and predictable. However, the Force, the 3 and 4 anyway, is much more than a unidimensional tracker and it is superb in conditions. It cannot be just a tracker if I can do a 180 degree bow rudder in it. A few days ago Gail and I were coming back from Baker I. off the south tip of MDI. 3+ mile crossing with 3-5' swells from the East and 1-2' wind waves coming from North driven by 10-15Kt wind. We just paddled along through it at 3 Kt..no drama. Yes, not conditions for the hard folks, but not placid stuff either. It is not a play boat, but it was made to cover ground easily despite conditions and it does that very, very well.

Ed Lawson

[subaruguru]

Thanks, Ed.

I managed to finally try an 06 C/K/FB (yup, they still use glass on the deck-sides!) Force 5 yesterday, and agree that it lean-turns and bow-rudders really well. Acceleration was a bit slower than my Looksha, but I guess that's because of much longer waterline. Tracking, esp in wid, is superb, though!

Problem is that the new 2006 seat is STILL a mess, as its molded sidewall "hangers", although now parallel instead of curved inward, are still too close together, resulting in considerable pinching.

The deeper-dish, hard-backed seat itself defines the rear geometry better, and locks me in, making the still-imprecise backband almost a non-issue. Good.

The thigh braces are skimpy both in length (I suppose more padding can be put in) AND girth. I don't know how to WIDEN thigh braces.

Thicker padding won't do it. Anybody know of any stiffer "winglets" that can be glued on that would be stiff enough to brace against?

I suppose I can try to remount the sidewall "hangers" after splaying their front edges a bit and redrilling them, but I'm afraid they might not like being torqued and might either crack or pull out, damaging the coaming mount holes too.

I suppose I could cut the damned things off and try gluing the seat to the hull, but don't the sidewall hangers also protect the hull from deformation by suspension? I could REPLACE the hangers with thick flexible rubber ones (tire sidewall material has tough steel inner belts, eh), but that's take hours of reinventing the wheel...and I'd still have to glue the seat to the hull to provide a stable geomtery even if the down-force is small due to the new flexy Goodyear suspension.

I'm trying to avoid starting from scratch with a whole new cockpit on a NEW boat. A used one would be more palatable as a surgical candidate.

I remember as a newcomer I was told to find a COCKPIT that fits well and a reasonable hull. Now I'm told to get the perfect HULL and do the interior decorating from scratch. So the best boat for me is the Force 5 with the Aquanaut cockpit. How do I make one?

Or do I just take the Looksha out and patiently wait for the new 07 iterations, like the new P&H Cetus? Oy!

[wilsoj2]

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a known Aquanaut advocate ;-)

I demoed a Force IV at the symposium and was very impressed with the boat. At 6' & 170 lbs it fit me very well.(I understand the hulls of the IV & V are the same) It seemed faster than my Aquanaut, though took more of a finish to roll (probably highly subjective take on that). It did seem to weigh a LOT less than my ProLite Aquanaut. The Aquanaut feels more fluid through its stability curve than the Force did - this may be the same as your description of creamy.

I've heard some very good things from folks who've paddled the Force boats in real seas.

Don't base your experience of Aquanaut secondary on David's (if you mean David Lewis). His Aquanaut's seat in at least an inch higher than mine or any other I've seen. I find the Aquanaut has extraordinarily solid secondary.

I did all my 3* training and assessed successfully in my Aquanaut - though if I were to do it again I'd use my Romany ;-)

I think the 'naut shines in chop and challanging seas. No one I've spoken to has not been impressed with the boat's manners when the sea gets lumpy. I found last Sunday that it surfs pretty well as well. In some ways I like the way it surfs better than my Romany. It does take more to turn than an Explorer, but not more than a Force boat.

If the fit of the 'naut is more comfortable, it might be the better boat for you. I find the cockpit a bit broad and have changed out the Valley backband with a Bomber which I have set so I'm about an inch forward in the seat - I'm getting better thigh contact.

There are usually a few used Aquanauts around. It shouldn't be difficult to find one at a good price.

[djlewis]

I suspect what happened to Ernie was that he was searching for the end of the secondary stability and found it -- the hard way.

The 'Naut is like that... no preferred edge angle, unlike the Romany-Explorer hull. That's part of the "creamy" edging profile of the 'Naut. You have to put the boat at the edge ~you~ want; it won't do it for you. But if you are within the secondary stability, it will be just as stable as anything on the water. Trouble is, you need some experimenting and feeling out to get to know instinctively where that edge limit is. So I suspect that Ernie, first time in the boat, was pushing it without having done the necessary feeling out.

Of course, that "creamy" edging is one thing that makes the Aquanaut so superb in conditions, perhaps even better than the Explorer (fightin' words, I realize). Another is the tight bow, with the convex sides. Under side wave pressure, that bow grips laterally rather than floating up and moving sideways like the Romany family hulls, which have a noticeable flare in the bow above a certain point. For example, a 'Naut taking a breaker from the side in a rock garden will move a lot less sideways than most other boats.

The downsides of the Naut's sharp, tight bow are a bit wetter ride and a little more oomph needed to start a carved-style, inside edge (low brace) turn. But who's doing those anyway, except for eddy peel-outs. ;-)))

--David.

[EEL]

>I suspect what happened to Ernie was that he was searching

>for the end of the secondary stability and found it -- the

>hard way.

I must preface by saying I'm not sure any of this gearhead stuff has much to do with paddling, but I must confess to enjoying the discussions. Anyway, I really do not know what "secondary stability" is since it is used in so many ways. I would instead say that if he was leaning the boat on clam water, then he simply leaned the boat to the point where the righting moment went negative. What that says about how a boat performs in rough water is, I think, essentially very little. Maybe the righting moment drops off suddenly or maybe it is never large...guess we would need to look at the curves from SK to have a clue. If you look at the stability curves for the Aquanaut and the Explorer, I suspect you would not find big differences. I suspect the intial segment of the curve is steeper on the Explorer which gives it that "shoulder". Compare either to a Kapp or a Bahiya and you would see a huge difference. Which is why the following comment is interesting.

>

>The 'Naut is like that... no preferred edge angle, unlike

>the Romany-Explorer hull. That's part of the "creamy" edging

>profile of the 'Naut. You have to put the boat at the edge

>~you~ want; it won't do it for you.

Now I agree the two have this different feel, but I don't think the stability curves show righting moments that would explain or justify the big shoulder edge often descrbed for the Explorer. And it is why I think "secondary stability" is a purely subjective judgement by each of us as individuals about how a boat feels when things get rough. Often boats with very small righting moments, but with broad, gently sloping curves that extend outward farther are found to be very seaworthy. Yet they are very tippy boats once leaned and will capsize easily if statically leaned. I suspect the fact it takes very little force to right or heel them make it very easy for good paddlers to keep the boat under them.

>

> Another is the

>tight bow, with the convex sides.

This seems right to me, but it is interesting that the Force is seen as a hard tracking, less manuverable boat, but it has a concave, rounded bottom bow which should give it a looser bow which is often associated with "turny" boats. If I paddle both backwards and intitate a turn, I find this to be quite true and the Force's bow with slide across the water much more easily. This is turn suggests a tight or loose bow is not a big factor in manuverability.

To me the Force is at least as manuverable as an Aquananut in terms of the ability to get it turning and to keep in turning underway, but this only results, I suspect, when you engage the well defined chines midships. Sort of like the AA which may not seem so "turny" until you get the chine engaged. Its flatter hull and narrower beam also means it pivots well given the lack of rocker and length.

In the end, there are so many factors that go into how a given hull performs, whatever that means, that I suspect laymen such as myslef are simply like the blind men describing an elephant when it comes to understanding why boats do what they do. This spring I asked someone how they liked their Nigel Foster boat that was sitting on their car. He took around five minutes to slowly walk from bow to stern explaing what each curve did, how it all fit together, and why he liked how the hull performed for the paddling he liked to do. Turned out he was a naval architect. It was a real education in how little we know about how boats really work. Fortunately, all we have to do is find boats that feel right for us.

Ed Lawson

[wilsoj2]

Yup.

Someone once put it as "Smiles per mile."

I can give hosts of reasons why after demoeing about two dozen boats I chose an Aquanaut as my primary boat. Honestly, the real reason was it put such a smile on my face the first time I paddled a 'naut out from MIKCo into the chop of Casco Bay.

It did help that both June and my wife said that I looked so comfortable and at ease in the boat that it genuinely seemed that it was my boat. Tom, of course, wouldn't even entertain selling me an Aquanaut until I had demoed even more boats and taken the 'naut into real conditions.

As long as the boat is capable, the rest is personal.

Any of us not in Explorers at the Downeast, or any other BCU related symposium, were/are in the minority. Yet, I heard no one say that someones Nordkapp, Legend, Anas, Avocet, Mariner, Greenlander Pro, Aquanaut, Montauk, Force IV, etc... boats were not capable or inproper boats.

Someone deciding among capable boats that can do what the paddler wishes (e.g carry enough gear, not get blown about too much, not be unpredictable in conditions, etc...) should decide on the boat that feels best when the paddler is in it in the conditions the paddler will encounter.

[djlewis]

>I can give hosts of reasons why after demoeing about two

>dozen boats I chose an Aquanaut as my primary boat.

>Honestly, the real reason was it put such a smile on my face

>the first time I paddled a 'naut out from MIKCo into the

>chop of Casco Bay.

I had a similar experience. I took Tom Bergh's demo Aquanaut out with NSPN leader training doing rescues and such on a flattish day, and was thinking -- nice boat, but nothing special. Then, on the way back, we ran into a choppy patch and bingo -- the Aquanaut actually felt ~more~ stable in the chop than on the flat water. Amazing -- it just seemed to lock in. I understand that the Explorer and a few others give a similar phenomenon.

Another sale point I experienced with the Naut was incredible glide... maintaining speed very well without paddling. I can now literally take one stroke for two of everybody else's and lose almost nothing in speed against them. I realize that's true of good boats in general, but it's even more pronounced with the Naut. I have also experienced a combination -- working hard to chase an ultralight carbon-kevlar Quest up a flat Vineyard Sound, until we hit the serious multi-directional chop from the current out of a hole in the island chain, and then zooming ahead.

Also, the example of taking a breaker in a rock garden came directly from Tom. (I obviously wasn't going to demo in rocks.) He related the story of going into the rocks for a rescue in an Aquanaut. The timing was obviously not of his choosing, so he saw a breaker coming abeam and grimaced for the inevitable bounce against the rocks, as he expected from mostly paddling an Explorer. But the Naut held firm!

Anyway you can't demo in ~every~ sort of condition or situation you want to paddle in, so you have to (a) take other people's word for some things; ( start trying to figure things out for yourself, that is, begin training in naval -- or at least kayak -- architecture (thanks, Ed). And that's why I'm carrying on this conversation as best I can, even though I know there are so many factors I'm missing and I'm probably making so many mistakes on the ones I do mention -- and the ~real~ kayak architects who lurk around here are probably chuckling up their sleeve at how the sub-novices understand so little and talk so big.

Or put another way... if you aren't capsizing occasionally, you aren't pushing your limits and you aren't ever going to get better.

So... sploosh!

--David.

[wilsoj2]

>I had a similar experience. I took Tom Bergh's demo Aquanaut

>out with NSPN leader training doing rescues and such on a

>flattish day, and was thinking -- nice boat, but nothing

>special. Then, on the way back, we ran into a choppy patch

>and bingo -- the Aquanaut actually felt ~more~ stable in the

>chop than on the flat water. Amazing -- it just seemed to

>lock in. I understand that the Explorer and a few others

>give a similar phenomenon.

Actually my final demo of the 'naut was circumnavigating Peaks with conditions on the seaward side such that Steve Maynard brought his paddlers in and he greeted us when we arrived back at the boathouse with "Interesting seas!" We all know what Steve means by 'interesting.' I'm still working on building the confidence of dealing with the condtions of that day by choice ;-)

What I mean to say is that the Aquanaut is nothing special in flat water except a kind of sexy boat with decent speed and moderate primary stability. However, in my experience it has unsurpassed manners (equanimity) when the seas get rough.

Like David, I am a heretic and will assert that for my paddling, I think the Aquanaut is better behaved in conditions than the Explorer - I assume I don't loose any of my BCU certs for that statement ;-)

>Or put another way... if you aren't capsizing occasionally,

>you aren't pushing your limits and you aren't ever going to

>get better.

>

>So... sploosh!

>

>--David.

Again yup!

[djlewis]

>I must preface by saying I'm not sure any of this gearhead

>stuff has much to do with paddling, but I must confess to

>enjoying the discussions.

It's a legit topic, of practical value, even if we -- well, I for sure -- don't really know much. But I'm trying to keep eyes open, ears flapping, proprioceptors alert and learn something. So I apprecaite corrections, arguments, even protests that I don't know sheet about what I'm saying.

>If you look at the stability

>curves for the Aquanaut and the Explorer, I suspect you

>would not find big differences. I suspect the intial segment

>of the curve is steeper on the Explorer which gives it that

>"shoulder". Compare either to a Kapp or a Bahiya and you

>would see a huge difference. Which is why the following

>comment is interesting.

Don't know much about the Kapp or Bahiya, but my reasoning was this -- in conditions, the water is edging you whether you like it or not. So a smooth stability curve leads to a smooth response to waves and chop; conversely, a bump in the curve leads to a bump in the response. Or, going back to hull shape, when the water reaches that flare, it's going to rattle the boat a bit harder than if there were no flare.

>And it is why I think "secondary stability"

>is a purely subjective judgement by each of us as

>individuals about how a boat feels when things get rough.

Agree... I was using the term as a general blanket for the whole range of edging and water-response phenomena. But I can gladly banish the term from my vocabulary. Hey, what kind of stability didja say?! ;-))

>> Another is the tight bow, with the convex sides.

>

>This seems right to me, but it is interesting that the Force

>is seen as a hard tracking, less manuverable boat, but it

>has a concave, rounded bottom bow which should give it a

>looser bow which is often associated with "turny" boats.

My one close investigation of a Force (4) bow indicated to me that it had less flare than an Explorer -- more like an Aquanaut, but maybe not quite as concave and sharp. I recall the lack of flare clearly, but the convexity/concavity is dim -- I was just starting to think about these things.

>If I paddle both backwards and intitate a turn, I find this to

>be quite true and the Force's bow with slide across the

>water much more easily. This is turn suggests a tight or

>loose bow is not a big factor in manuverability.

Ummm.. not sure I see the relevance of bow shape to paddling backwards. If I understand things correctly -- no guarantee of that -- the shape of the bow matters when paddling forward or taking a forward or beam wave because that affects how the bow "digs in" or "floats up" when under pressure. When paddling backwards, the bow, acting like a stern, is in the low pressure, flat water generated inside the bow wake (now coming from the stern moving forward) and thus its shape is a lot less relevant -- it's free to slide around pretty freely no matter what. The shape of the stern, acting as the bow, is a lot more relevant, and that's one reason boats differ so dramatically in their backwards handling -- some turn incessantly like whitewater boats and some track pretty well.

>To me the Force is at least as manuverable as an Aquananut

>in terms of the ability to get it turning and to keep in

>turning underway, but this only results, I suspect, when you

>engage the well defined chines midships. Sort of like the AA

>which may not seem so "turny" until you get the chine

>engaged. Its flatter hull and narrower beam also means it

>pivots well given the lack of rocker and length.

Not having paddled a Force much, I can't say. I do know the Naut needs to be edged quite decisively to get a good turn. Is that what you mean by engaging the chines midships?

>In the end, there are so many factors that go into how a

>given hull performs, whatever that means, that I suspect

>laymen such as myslef are simply like the blind men

>describing an elephant when it comes to understanding why

>boats do what they do.

Yeah, me too. See my response to Jim in this thread.

--David.

[EEL]

>

>Ummm.. not sure I see the relevance of bow shape to paddling

>backwards... When paddling backwards, the bow, acting like a

>stern, is in the low pressure, flat water generated inside

>the bow wake (now coming from the stern moving forward) and

>thus its shape is a lot less relevant -- it's free to slide

>around pretty freely no matter what.

Yes. I was just commenting that I think the freer the bow the more easily it will slide round when paddling backwards and turning. The Force's bow slides very easily across the water in that setting so I think it has a loose bow.

> I do know the

>Naut needs to be edged quite decisively to get a good turn.

That was my impression and I think that is due to the lack of well defined chine and reduced rocker. The Avocet which is similar in hull design turns much more easily due I think to increased rocker and being shorter.

>Is that what you mean by engaging the chines midships?

>

Basically. The well defined chine on the Force does not begin until around the footpegs and then carries well aft. Therefore you need to lean it over well to engage the chine to make it contribute whatever it is going to do for the boat. The front part of the boat has a more rounded cross section which I think frees the bow and the chine carried well aft may tend to make the stern stick more. Maybe that is to help it surf better, Danny is a big surfer, or to balance the boat more, or to improve tracking....I don't know.

One of the the things I look for in boats is what type of chine, if any, they have and where is it located. The chine is often asymmetrical in terms of along the length of the boat. My limited experience is boats which carry a well defined chine far foward can really be turned with a little edge, especially those with a hard chine. For example, for me the Q Boat will take a set and really turn with just a little lean as will the AA. This may or may not be a good trait depending on what you want to do with the boat. I think the rounded chine on an Explorer is fairly symmetrical and comparatively short. That may explain why it seems I can slide both bow and stern around easily on that boat to pivot it or turn it as opposed to carving a turn on a chine. If that makes sense, who knows..just impressions.

Ed Lawson

[subaruguru]

Well, the crap's hitting the fan, as I sold my Looksha IV HV tonight to a big novice who I invited to join the club.

WHERE within a couple of hours drive can I get a deal on a C/K Aquanaut? I just emailed gro, as well. Otherwise I'm forced to get that Impex Force V, reinvent the seat and braces, and freeze* my feet in smaller boots! I suppose there are worse choices....

Thanks again.

*not particularly attractive as my father was evac'd from the Hurtgen forest with trenchfoot in '44.

[djlewis]

Hey, Ernie

Congrats on the sale.

I know of a very fine kevlar (not carbon -- those are really rare) 2005 Aquanaut with only two problems -- a small one and a big one. The small one is that the cockpit is frelled up so that you cannot fully seat the forward edge of a sprayskirt bungee over the front of the coaming.

The the big problem -- huge, actually -- is that it's exactly the same color scheme as ~my~ 2006 Naut. So that means it cannot be paddled in anywhere in the Northeast! Too bad, because it's probably a bargain, but I aintagonna even tellya where it is.

;-))) --David.

[subaruguru]

Well, the Cetus doesn't arrive 'til April, there are NO Pro-Lite (middle C/K layup 51lb) Aquanauts anywhere, and I sold my beloved Looksha HV yesterday! So I was without anything but my ultrawobbly KP Jet. Oy!

So the crimson/yellow Force 5 at CRCK became mine! Spent a couple hours in it this afternoon, after reinverting its recessed rigging

"teats" so I could get my big feet past them without ripping my toes off.

My pair of tours around the Mystic Lake were instructive, partly in that comparing boats in unfamiliar settings doesn't yield the same quality of results as when changes occur in a familiar climate.

I was surprised that the Force 5 lean-turns almost as well as my Looksha, but shared its solid-bow confidence that I found a BIT lacking in the Aquanaut. The "creamy continuousness" of both of these hulls when turned is THICKER with the Force, so I feel a bit more protected than in the AN. I was surprised that the Force 5 glides SO well, even longer than both the AN and Looksha.

But my abandonned Looksha certainly accelerated faster, as long as I didn't care which direction in the wind! The AN felt almost as quick, but the Force 5 is definitely sluggish off the line, taxing me with my Ikelos. Felt like lost energy to launch. Thought maybe it's the longer waterline having more drag than the underweighted floaty Looksha HV or the simply smaller, more-rockered AN, but then I dropped this flat thing called a "skeg" and my God, it's like it clicked onto a rail! Equal forward stroke effort seemed to be more efficient, and at least satisfying in that I could glide forever.

Is a fast crusing speed going to require more upper body strength from me? (When I first got my Ikelos last year I was told that some folks get tendonitis due to the big bite, but I NEVER felt that knid of inertia with the Looksha. Now I wonder if I'm up to the big spoons....)

So now I have to see how this tracky yet easy-turning newbie does in conditions. Yippee. Just wish it felt a bit more explosive off the line. But the Aquanaut didn't either. Guess my Looksha was a faster "kite" than I thought. Oy....

After a couple hours' soreness I'll try padding and cutting and tweaking and hope to mimic the Aquanaut's superb cockpit fit.

Thanks for all your help.

And yes, David, it's RED with a yellow seam...somewhat unlike your AN, eh?

[wilsoj2]

Congrats on the new boat. Enjoy it and paddle it well.

I think that the less wetted surface the less drag off the line. My Elaho DS and Romany are really quick from a dead stop but hit the wall much sooner than my Aquanaut. Under 4 knots wetted surface is the dominant factor above 4 knots waterline trumps wetted surface.

[shewhorn]

So, have you named it yet? Can't wait to see the new beastie.

Cheers, Joe