Ballast in a Kayak

[Gcosloy]

A new acquaintance recently acquired a Valley Q-boat. This as I understand it is the Anas Acuta for medium to large paddlers. Never one to miss an opportunity to paddle another boat I tried it and while heeling up to the point of capsize, had to low brace to prevent same. Next my companion strapped in 25 lbs of lead ballast right in front of my seat and the boat performed with noticeably more secondary than it had previously unloaded. Yesterday we went out in Salem sound and he placed a second bag totalling 50 lbs. He wasn't too sure of conditions and wanted to be secure. I noticed he still had enough free-board such that the water line was a good inch below his shear line. It should be clear that more weight, all other things being equal, the more area of hull is wetted and consequently more stability is achieved.

Given that many of us favor boats with an expeditionary heritage that were originally designed to perform optimally with significant more weight in them than the paddler alone, are we missing out on an important tool to improve our boats performance by not experimenting with ballast? By the way this discussion is not meant to include the simple re-balancing of a boat that weathercocks too much. More importantly, how much weight are you hauling? Of course all of this is relative to the boat volume you're paddling and your weight as well. A 180 lb paddler in a P&H 161 may be optimum empty, while a 120 lb paddler may need to add another 40 to 60 lb. of gear. Conversely an NDK Explorer may be optimum for 200-220 lb. combined weight.

What's in your hatch?????

[jason]

I can't speak for the boat, but I would say that "25 lbs of lead ballast" isn't a good practice. If you must do ballast I would suggest jugs of water or something else that can float or at least not take the boat to the bottom.

-Jason

[EEL]

The Q boat was designed for larger paddlers or those wanting a boat for extended trips. As such, I assume it is really for paddlers well over 200# or for someone at least 175# who will be carrying a good deal of gear. The design stuff I have read suggests the typical kayak can perform well at no more than 40# to 60# on either side of its design displacement. Lots of luck finding out what that is for a commercial boat; Valley and P&H, to their credit, make some effort to give you a clue on the range. So if you select a boat for touring that is matched to your weight and around 60# of stuff over the full day kit, it should perform OK. If you need to add ballast to a boat to get it to perform OK, then you you don't have a boat properly sized.

Of course who knows what "perform OK" means. That is a personal thing as shown by all the folks who select big touring boats and use them 90%+ for day trips and enjoy them. I suspect for day use, so long as the boat is not a cork and doesn't get blown around, the lively feel of being loaded well below design displacement is a good thing.

Ed Lawson

[subaruguru]

A new acquaintance recently acquired a Valley Q-boat. This as I understand it is the Anas Acuta for medium to large paddlers. Never one to miss an opportunity to paddle another boat I tried it and while heeling up to the point of capsize, had to low brace to prevent same. Next my companion strapped in 25 lbs of lead ballast right in front of my seat and the boat performed with noticeably more secondary than it had previously unloaded. Yesterday we went out in Salem sound and he placed a second bag totalling 50 lbs. He wasn't too sure of conditions and wanted to be secure. I noticed he still had enough free-board such that the water line was a good inch below his shear line. It should be clear that more weight, all other things being equal, the more area of hull is wetted and consequently more stability is achieved.

Given that many of us favor boats with an expeditionary heritage that were originally designed to perform optimally with significant more weight in them than the paddler alone, are we missing out on an important tool to improve our boats performance by not experimenting with ballast? By the way this discussion is not meant to include the simple re-balancing of a boat that weathercocks too much. More importantly, how much weight are you hauling? Of course all of this is relative to the boat volume you're paddling and your weight as well. A 180 lb paddler in a P&H 161 may be optimum empty, while a 120 lb paddler may need to add another 40 to 60 lb. of gear. Conversely an NDK Explorer may be optimum for 200-220 lb. combined weight.

What's in your hatch?????

Hi Gene,

As I mostly paddle without gear, my total load, with paddle, float, pump, is about 200lbs, well under design midpoint for both my Force5 and next Cetus.

I remember that loading the front hatch of my old LookshaIV HV significantly reduced its bouncing on waves, whereas loading the rear hatch didn't much affect windage, as the rear waterline was longish.

The Cetus and Force4/5 have similar volume, weight ranges, but very different waterlines

UNLOADED.

The Forces maintain a long waterline unloaded, and thus are very tracky and show almost no windage. The downside is only moderate acceleration, although crusing speed is high. Asymmetrical pressure changes when leaning (especially after removal of the lousy seat) result in resposive turning.

Watching the Cetus unloaded, with an average weight paddler, is instructive in that the bow and stern are barely in the water. Edging results in such a rapid change in waterline that turning is immediate, and almost TOO quick, perhaps helped by the fat-assed Swede form.

With a heavier paddler (or moderate gear), the Cetus waterline changes less when edging, such that turning becomes more linear rather than oversteering.

It's interesting to note that P&H lists the Cetus as a big, fast tourer (perhaps not wishing to market against the Capellas), but that its rep is building as a remarkably nimble 18ft fast playboat when paddled unloaded.

So my take on this is that the RELATIVE change in waterline as a function of load weight is the most important factor in determining load RANGE per design.

The Forces (or Epic 18, QCCs, etc) have long waterlines that change little with load, and thus maintain their personalities across wider ranges. The more-rockered yaks (Cetus, lots of playboats) have shorter waterlines that CHANGE dramatically as load increases, correllating with change in behavior. Nimble playfulness, perhaps with windage, unloaded can become sluggish, but stable performance under load.

I certainly haven't the experience to comment specifically on the behaviors of many boats, nor the knowledge to factor in hull shapes, contours, and chines in this discussion, but just wanted to share what I've noticed recently in differentiating the performance of two 18ft 100gal big tourers that I like that have quite different personalities.

(Last year I spotted at the rei demoday with that guy who was heli-rescued out the previous month. He offered that one problem was his lack of experience controlling the Q-boat he was paddling that day. When I later looked at the radical combination of hull contours of the Q-boat hull I began to understand why some find it unusual.)

[Ken C]

Both the Q and Anas are obviously a different breed. The Anas requires skills and a knowledge of a hard chine boats idiosyncrocies to paddle it well, i'd imagine the Q is much the same. Explorers and Romany's they are not.

Ballast lowers the center of gravity also which will translate into a bit more stability. If a boat requires ballast, i'd suggest that perhaps that the boat/use/paddler combination is not appropriate.

[jonsprag1]

Both the Q and Anas are obviously a different breed. The Anas requires skills and a knowledge of a hard chine boats idiosyncrocies to paddle it well, i'd imagine the Q is much the same. Explorers and Romany's they are not.

Ballast lowers the center of gravity also which will translate into a bit more stability. If a boat requires ballast, i'd suggest that perhaps that the boat/use/paddler combination is not appropriate.

My Tempest 170 is more steady--ie better primary and secondary stablity when it is loaded with camping gear---my problem with lee cocking(mentioned in a thread a few months ago) goes away and I generally feel much more stable in a breeze and chop--that said there is a downside--obviously a fully loaded boat is heavier and requires more energy to paddle---I've been working on turning and handling techniques for day trips when the boat is empty. The 170 is lively but with the right technique is controllable going 10--30 degrees off a heavy chop and wind. As far as putting water or lead ballast into an otherwise empty boat, I would think there would be significant problems with weight shifting in the hatches, particularly when rolling, which could prove disasterous---this doesn't happend when the boat is packed tightly with camping gear---no room to shift.

[Gcosloy]

Both the Q and Anas are obviously a different breed. The Anas requires skills and a knowledge of a hard chine boats idiosyncrocies to paddle it well, i'd imagine the Q is much the same. Explorers and Romany's they are not.

Ballast lowers the center of gravity also which will translate into a bit more stability. If a boat requires ballast, i'd suggest that perhaps that the boat/use/paddler combination is not appropriate.

Well I take your point about the Q-boat Ken. However you don't really address the general question which has to do with improving the performance of an expedition type boat being used for day-trips empty save its paddler. I was able to paddle the Q-boat quite enjoyably with 25 lb. of ballast. I'm 175 lb., does this mean that that boat is only appropriate for someone weighing 200+lb. and I should stick to a smaller volume boat? Or should I infer that if I'm not comfortable with it's stability unloaded, I need a different boat? Ballast is simply a synonym for weight. Some day paddler's carry a kit of 30lb. They don't call it ballast and yet it must change the boat's performance. I'm curious why with so many debates over boat performance and hull design and characteristics, the experiments have no controls, i.e. different paddler weights, different gear or none at all in their hatch. Boats are designed to perform acceptably well within the limits of a general weight range. This does not mean that performance cannot be optimized for different paddlers in the same boat by adding if needed additional weight.

[Gcosloy]

As far as putting water or lead ballast into an otherwise empty boat, I would think there would be significant problems with weight shifting in the hatches, particularly when rolling, which could prove disasterous---this doesn't happend when the boat is packed tightly with camping gear---no room to shift.

Good point, however the original idea for ballast came from none other than Derek Hutchinson who recommends strapping down lead close to the center of balance, say under your legs. If you capsize, there is the added benefit of self-righting which the boat attempts to do since the weight at the bottom of the hull now acts like a pendulum wanting to arc downwards. I didn't want to mention this for fear that one or more of you folks would jump all over me with the "equipment instead of skills is a bad compromise". Anyway, I can roll an empty or flooded boat, but would it not be fun to have some help from weight helping to push you up as well?

[PeterB]

A few different issues are being bandied about here. With the ballast experiment you described, you’re talking mainly about “center of gravity”, more than “displacement”, “ideal weight”, or “performance” (whatever that means):

When you put 25 and then 50 pounds of weight in the bottom of your boat, you are markedly lowering the center of gravity, and this will make you feel more stable, whether or not you have achieved "ideal" displacement for that boat. If that same 50 pounds were, say, strapped to the top of your your deck, you would feel nowhere near as stable, while the displacement would not have changed. Taken to an extreme, take that same 50 pounds and put it in a pack on your shoulders, or on top of your head: displacement is still the same, but … well, don’t try it, even with someone there to rescue you.

[Ken C]

Gene,

Certainly you bring up an interesting subject here. But my read was that it was Not really "performance" that improved, but the paddlers comfort zone, and stability. And ballast will definately improve stability to a point.

I'm only 140# wet, so i indeed know the issue of design weight. In the end i found that paddling skills, and time in the boat go a long ways towards making one comfortable. Plus i'm too lazy to haul around extra weight.

[Phil Allen]

If you look at some of Sea Kayaker Magazine's boat reviews, they give you the righting moments of the boat with different weight paddlers +/- 100 lbs of gear. Consistantly, the ability of the boat to return to upright is higher with the extra gear (ballast in the previous discussions) within some limits.

Interestingly, adding the 100 lbs of gear gives very little change in waterline or wetted surface/submerged area (10-20 percent change) to account for the nearly 2 fold increase in righting moment. I suspect the effect is due to the change in center of mass. As the boat ways 30-60 lbs, and the paddler weighs 100-300lbs, the center of mass for an empty boat and paddler is probably near the paddlers chest. I suspect that the cargo/ballast adds mass closer to the waterline and lowers the effective center of mass towards the water surface. This would lead to increased stability due to a reduction in the torque generated by the mass of paddler, gear and boat.

Now to stop being a pointy head, its hard to directly translate the physics into our feelings about the stability of a boat. Extra mass will help to a point, but good luck if it starts moving around in the boat while you paddle.

Phil

ps: wrote this and then noticed PeterB beat me to it

[Gcosloy]

A few different issues are being bandied about here. With the ballast experiment you described, you’re talking mainly about “center of gravity”, more than “displacement”, “ideal weight”, or “performance” (whatever that means):

When you put 25 and then 50 pounds of weight in the bottom of your boat, you are markedly lowering the center of gravity, and this will make you feel more stable, whether or not you have achieved "ideal" displacement for that boat. If that same 50 pounds were, say, strapped to the top of your your deck, you would feel nowhere near as stable, while the displacement would not have changed. Taken to an extreme, take that same 50 pounds and put it in a pack on your shoulders, or on top of your head: displacement is still the same, but … well, don’t try it, even with someone there to rescue you.

Yes Peter, you are correct. Performance is relative and subjective. A simpler way to demonstrate what you're talking about is to raise your seat by sticking a pad under your butt. As little as 1/2" can change the feeling of stability. I don't need 50 lb. on my head to demonstrate that!

[jonsprag1]

well regarding trolling if the lead or whatever you were using for balence was securely fastened to the bottom of the cockpit(or whatever) then it would probably be easier to roll---did you try rolling your freind's boat? If so how was it?

[Gcosloy]

well regarding trolling if the lead or whatever you were using for balence was securely fastened to the bottom of the cockpit(or whatever) then it would probably be easier to roll---did you try rolling your freind's boat? If so how was it?

I did not but was tempted! Maybe next time we go out! What if I did and it was marvelously easy? This could start a trend. Folks with sick rolls purchasing lead driving the price up. Maybe nows the time to corner the lead market?

[jason]

I did not but was tempted! Maybe next time we go out! What if I did and it was marvelously easy? This could start a trend. Folks with sick rolls purchasing lead driving the price up. Maybe nows the time to corner the lead market?

If you need the weight please bring it in the form of dry cloths, food, drink, repair kits etc. Lead shot is of very little value on the water. Please keep in mind that lead smaller than 1/2 ounce is ill-legal in most (all?) NE states.

Adding 50LB's of safety gear is an asset, 50LB's of lead is of not value when stuff hits the fan. It's just something that has to be lugged and a environmental hazard.

If you must install lead in your boat please install float bags.

-Jason

[jonsprag1]

If you need the weight please bring it in the form of dry cloths, food, drink, repair kits etc. Lead shot is of very little value on the water. Please keep in mind that lead smaller than 1/2 ounce is ill-legal in most (all?) NE states.

Adding 50LB's of safety gear is an asset, 50LB's of lead is of not value when stuff hits the fan. It's just something that has to be lugged and a environmental hazard.

If you must install lead in your boat please install float bags.

-Jason

Guess you would have to go with steel shot instead of lead---if you like to duck hunt from your boat would be of some value on the water

[Pintail]

Regarding lead strapped under the legs (how on earth...?) -- does it occur that perhaps, in the event of a capsize, the ensuing gravitational pull on said sheet of lead could have potentially-disastrous results (think: a man's gonads)? Ouch! Perhaps only Derek might dream up such a scheme...

[rcohn]

Regarding lead strapped under the legs (how on earth...?) -- does it occur that perhaps, in the event of a capsize, the ensuing gravitational pull on said sheet of lead could have potentially-disastrous results (think: a man's gonads)? Ouch! Perhaps only Derek might dream up such a scheme...

If I remember correctly, Derek put the lead behind him, not between his legs and he strapped it down.

I have carried lead under my legs and it does greatly improve the stability. This was carrying scuba weights in the small beckson hatch of a Necky Dolphin sit-on-top, so the lead did serve a purpose beyond ballast.

Ralph

[Gcosloy]

With the danger of kicking the proverbial dead horse, check out this discussion on ballast from the early days, i.e 1998 Noted designers such as Nick Shade and John Winters weigh in (no pun intended) on the subject.

http://www.paddlewise.net/topics/boatdesign/ballast.html

[EEL]

With the danger of kicking the proverbial dead horse, check out this discussion on ballast from the early days, i.e 1998 Noted designers such as Nick Shade and John Winters weigh in (no pun intended) on the subject.

I believe Winters answered your original question by positing that most people have been sold/lead to believe larger boats are good/appropriate when often they are not. So perhaps the issue should not be the advisability of using ballast to make a too big boat better, but rather the advisability of adjusting the opinion of what constitutes a good sized boat for most use. How many ever go camping for more than a weekend or say around three nights? Given a decent 16' boat will handle that easily, why lug around an 18' expedition boat?

Ed Lawson

[rcohn]

With the danger of kicking the proverbial dead horse, check out this discussion on ballast from the early days, i.e 1998 Noted designers such as Nick Shade and John Winters weigh in (no pun intended) on the subject.

I guess I'm not sure what your point is. If I had an expedition kayak which might weigh 60 lb, and need to strap in 50 lb of lead to go day paddling, I would need to deal with 110 lb boat plus whatever gear is being carried. Others must be much stronger than I am, but if the kayak required that much ballast I would certainly seek a lighter weight alternative.

Ralph

[subaruguru]

I believe Winters answered your original question by positing that most people have been sold/lead to believe larger boats are good/appropriate when often they are not. So perhaps the issue should not be the advisability of using ballast to make a too big boat better, but rather the advisability of adjusting the opinion of what constitutes a good sized boat for most use. How many ever go camping for more than a weekend or say around three nights? Given a decent 16' boat will handle that easily, why lug around an 18' expedition boat?

Ed Lawson

...Because that's what many of us have to buy in order to FIT in them! My legs and feet simply can't deal with Chatham 16, Currituck, Force3, or other venerable 16 footers' cockpits.

Ern

[EEL]

...Because that's what many of us have to buy in order to FIT in them! My legs and feet simply can't deal with Chatham 16, Currituck, Force3, or other venerable 16 footers' cockpits.

Fair enough. The boat needs to fit the paddler and the paddler needs to fit the boat. Still, I have to say I am around 180#, 5'10", with size 11 feet and I consider the Anaua Acuta a spacious boat, the Force4 luxuriously huge, and a Greenland replica hunting SOF nice and cozy. I did not start thinking this way, but it is where I ended up after spending time in each. We all paddle different boats even if they are the "same" boat since we interact with them differently. My opinion is go for the smallest boat that fits unless you routinely need more room for gear and my prejudice is smaller boats fit better than they might first seem. Obviously there are limits, and I don't mean to judge your conclusions on your needs. FWIW, I like all three and use all three and think they are the best for the use I make of them as everyone does of the boats they choose.

Ed Lawson

[Bill Gwynn]

Yup, plenty of lower volume boats out there. I am 5'11" 180 lbs, size 10.5 feet. Currently paddling an Anas, Pintail, and Avocet. The Avocet is plenty roomy for a 16' boat.

[bob budd]

Many I know have found their new Force 3/4s to be wonderful craft. For those of us who aren't comfortable in a Force 3, the Force 4 is often big enough. This weekend we were astounded at the packing of the boat. Tapered bag in the bow, waaaay out of site. Boots, sleeping bag, sleeping pad, tent parts, and still lots of room for food and essential kayaking gear. When not camping, the boat is light enough and needs no ballast other than my butt. I'm also not one to have alot of boats around, plastic for smashmouth and glass otherwise. As long as the shoe fits...