Brian Nystrom

Rinsing with distilled water should remove any residual salt. Allow it to dry thoroughly and if there was no component damage caused by the initial leak, it should work. If there are O-ring seals on it, lube them with silicone grease before assembly to improve the seal.

...don't waste your time trying to stretch it. You're going to have to trim it eventually, so you may as well do it now and avoid a lot of discomfort.

That's a great way to ruin a latex seal. Over-stretching like that may make it more comfortable, but it does so by tearing the seal on a microscopic level, reducing both its elasticity and its life. Trimming is easy, fast, doesn't damage the seal and you really have to try hard in order to screw it up enough to cause a problem.

...was on a shorter boat than a typical sea kayak. It was much more similar in size and width to a sea lion. This topic came up elsewhere recently and only one attack on a sea kayak came to light. It was a Dagger Meridian being paddled in the Carolinas that was bitten on the stern and released immediately. There are no seals down there, so it was more likely a confused/curious shark than a case of being mistaken for a seal.

No doubt that it's a frightening scenario. The important thing is that although the shark was obviously curious, it did not attack the kayak or even touch it. Still, I don't envy the guy in the boat!

...which is open to any person or business who wants to post there. We actively encourage people to do so. How can you possibly construe them as somehow taking advantage of the forum? They are entirely appropriate.

Don't you think you're overreacting a bit?

Where has he posted anything here that could be construed as "free advertizing" or that would "make a buck" as you imply? I've never seen him post anything like that, even on the Commercial forum where it's allowed. Even on his own forums - which are widely considered to be the best resources on the web for kayak building information and which HE pays for - he rarely self-promotes. When was the last time you saw Nick say "Buy my book" or "Buy my plans" or even put his business name in his signature? I can't think of a single instance. You're really barking up the wrong tree here.

He's trying to explain to you that there are no copyright issues with having material on the web and selling similar material to magazines. Considering that he's an author and boat designer and has to deal with copyright issues for a living, he should know what he's talking about. The fact that you've posted something here in no way precludes you from selling that information to someone who wants to publish and distribute it. I would think that's something you'd want to know.

He's also pointing out that the utility in forums is often in their continuity and and perpetual nature. Hacking up a thread ruins that, which is why he doesn't allow editing or deletions on his forums. While I find it frustrating that I can't correct typos either, it's good to know that information will always be there if I need to research something.

Take a deep breath and relax; no one is attacking you. Nick was just making some general points about the nature of forums and writing.

Deleting this material was pointless and has done nothing but cause confusion. I suggest you put it back.

When I recently wrote an article on gelcoat repair for publication, it was an expansion on material that I already had - and still have - on the web. No one cared a bit about that. I have another article submitted that is an expansion of a trip report I wrote a couple of years ago. I have a book coming out shortly that's an expansion/compilation of a lot of things I've written on the subject it deals with. There are no copyright issues with any of this.

Big Brother is watching you! ;-)

If the parts are a close fit to each other, epoxy should work. If there are significant gaps to be filled between the parts, regular epoxies will tend to run out of the gaps, so you'd probably be better off using something like GOOP or Lexel. Another option would be to use epoxy putty, which you should be able to find at a hardware store. For the best bond, clean the parts well and sand the mating surfaces lightly.

...the same way you trim neck seals. I've done this on all of my dry garments and contrary to the warnings from some manufacturers, it works fine.

It seems odd to me that some companies that make kayaking dry suits warn against trimming, when companies that use the same type of seals on diving dry suits - arguably a more critical application - have no problem with it.

If you have thick wrists, ankles or neck, you have little choice but to trim the seals, as you simply cannot buy seals that are big enough to be comfortable. If I have fit problems when using the largest seals I can find, someone your size certainly will. It's easy for people with smaller dimensions to recommend changing to larger seals, as it's an option FOR THEM. If you're at the larger end of the spectrum, there is no option available, at least not that I'm aware of. With very few exceptions (like OS Systems) dry suit manufactures do not make their own seals, they purchase commercially available products that are also available to consumers. The best place to check for options would be a dive shop like United Divers in Somerville, since they do a lot of seal replacements. If larger seals are available, they should know about it. George Gronseth (I forget his company name) is probably the best source of drysuit info in the paddling industry.

The person who first showed me that tight neck seals weren't necessary was Jim Brayden, who had many years of experience diving in dry suits. The neck seal on his diving dry suit (which he used for paddling initially) was so loose that I was shocked when I slipped a finger behind it.

It seems to me that the main issues for neck seals are:

- range and type of motion

- conditions in which the suit is worn

Diving is a relatively slow moving sport with limited range of motion and relatively stable conditions on the diver and their clothing. As a former diver, I can attest to this.

Paddling is a different matter. We move around more and also more rapidly. We're completely in air most of the time, completely submerged occasionally, and often somewhere in-between. We're often subjected to splash and turbulent water. All of these things make keeping a good seal at any suit opening more difficult.

That said, my experience has been that even with a neck seal that's relatively loose, I rarely get more than a few drops in the suit.

As one of the only people in the club with a Stohlquist dry suit and someone who happens to fit into the medium-large size they made, I'm really disappointed that not only have they apparently discontinued their Gore-Tex dry suits, but also the medium-large size. If the picture of the relief zipper on their website is any indication, it appears that they're using plastic zippers now. Relief zips are no longer factory options and must be installed by Rainy Pass. I don't buy their claim that they're not necessary, either. The last time I checked, my "male bits" were not located on my left hip, where the main zipper on the suit opens.

While lower prices are great, I have to question whether these compromizes made in the name of price are worth it. Fortunately, my old Gore-Tex Maytag dry suit has lots of life left in it.

The water up there is always cold and that particular weekend, the air was also unseasonably cold (60's), along with the weather being cloudy and damp. The dry suit just made sense under those conditions. I always bring it when I go to Maine, because you just never know when you'll want it.

You should NOT settle for a seal that chokes you. Trim it to fit. It's easy and it takes only a few minutes to make your suit perfectly comfortable.

The neoprene seals that are becoming increasing popular are great IF - and it's a big IF - they fit you. Unlike latex, they are not meant to be trimmed to fit. Either they fit you or they don't. If you're lucky and they fit you, you'll probably love them. If not, you'll need to go with latex and trim it to fit.

Get a breathable suit with a relief zip and booties. It will cost you more up front, but you'll be glad you spent the extra money in the long run.

The water temps locally are cold enough to require dry suits from October through June many years. I've needed my drysuit in July in Maine a few times.

Spring is arguably the most dangerous time of the year, as warm air temps lure people into underdressing when water temps are barely above their winter levels, which can incapacitate an inadequately protected swimmer in a few minutes. While some protected waters may get into the 70's by mid-late summer, many areas never get out of the 50's. Lakes can see even wider variation, depending on size and depth. Some slow, wide rivers get quite warm, while other smaller, faster ones stay pretty cold all year. Ours is not an easy environment to dress for.

For anyone who plans to paddle other than in summer and early-fall when water temps are highest, a dry suit is a very good investment and pretty much a necessity.

Since putting oak edges on the blades, it's taken a beating and come through with no damage. People who paddle in ice all the time - like Greenlanders - know this. I had to learn by trial and error. ;-)

I would assume it's the latter. If so, there's a lot you can do to modify the behavior of a boat. Still, I really think the S&G Night Heron is more your kind of vessel.

It looks like you had fun, too. BTW, didn't anyone tell you guys that Greenland paddles are required equipment for any trips involving ice? ;-)

For years, you've been pushing to make our program more formal, to require ACA/BCU certification of instructors and so forth. Now that the ACA has slapped its seal of approval on a watered-down version of what we've been doing successfully for years, that's suddenly good enough? Have you recently had a change of heart or is ACA approval all that matters to you?

As for "re-creating their own versions of programs...", the NSPN has had a trip leader training program for what, six years now? The ACA has hasn't even formally announced theirs yet. It's the ACA that's the new kid on this block.

The reasons we should not change to the ACA trip leader standard are numerous. Among them are:

1- There's a good reason why we have a 50 hour course instead of a 16 hour course. You cannot get more than a taste of the material in that short a period of instruction. While an introduction is definitely better than no knowledge at all, it's not a guarantee that the trainee has learned enough to be safe or that they will continue to improve their skills. Considering that this same criticism has been leveled at our program, which devotes 3X as much time to similar training, How can a shorter progam possibly be better? The answer is, it can't.

2- Another important difference between the programs is the level of oversight. There have been concerns voiced in the past that people who pass our trip leader course might think that they are "fully qualified" to lead others wherever they feel like doing so (contrary to what we repeatedly tell them). The way we have countered that is by close oversight of club sanctioned trips. Float plans are reviewed, trip leader performance is reviewed and follow-ups are done where necessary. Is the ACA going to provide ANY of that for this "voluntary" program? While they state that this is a easy conditions certification only, how are they planning to make sure that's what actually happens on the water? Perhaps they should adopt our model of club sanctioned trips vs. "private" trips?

3- There's the issue of screening participants. NSPN leaders do not paddle with unfamiliar paddlers without first acertaining their level of competence, either by discussing with other leaders who've paddled with the person or through direct communication. We set standards for clothing where the conditions require it. We are free to refuse to allow paddlers to participate if they don't meet the requirements. Is the ACA going to require that?

4- An additional important distinction is NSPN's stronger emphasis on teamwork. The ACA requires a leader and an assistant, we require a leader and three assistants. They accept a ratio of as much 1:6, leaders to participants (1:5 for the first 10 participants). While we don't specify a ratio, ours typically ends up closer to 1:2 or 1:3. Most of us have probably been on trips where there were more trained trip leaders than untrained participants, even if they weren't part of the Trip Leader's official team. Those of us who've been through the training program have seen how quickly multiple capsizes can turn into nightmare scenarios when resources are stretched thin. Some of us have experienced this for real. I would not want to be in a situation where there were only two trained leaders responsible for 10 untrained participants.

5- The result of the standards we set for ourselves is that we have an exemplary safety record. Our program obviously works well.

6- As I've said earlier, I applaud the ACA for finally instituting such a program, it's certainly a step in the right direction. However, it IS NOT a substitute for our Trip Leader Training program, since relatively speaking, it's "Trip Leader Lite". The NSPN has been through a long and arduous struggle to minimize risk and liability for the club and its members. For us to change our standard to one of reduced training and oversight would open us up to HUGE liability. After what we've been through, why would we want to go there? While this program would be an important step forward for ACA-affiliated clubs that don't have any type of training or assessment, it would be a step backward for the NSPN.

Although the ACA program is currently voluntary, it seems that this may a phase-in period and it will eventually become mandatory for trip leaders in ACA-affiliated clubs. Frankly, it's surprising that their insurance carrier hasn't mandated something like this already. What the NSPN should do is present our program to the ACA and work with them to make sure that it is an acceptable alternative to the ACA program. We should be allowed to set a higher standard for ourselves if we choose to do so and have that standard accepted by the ACA.

I agree with Ken that making trip leader training more accessible to people is a good thing, but the cost of the ACA program is a significant barrier in itself. If you think that the number of trip leaders is low now, just wait and see what happens if people are forced to pay ~$250 to become a trip leader. I suspect that one of the reasons that their program is voluntary now is so the ACA can gauge the response and its potential effect on member clubs. An expensive, mandatory training requirement for trip leaders might be the "final straw" for many clubs.

We haven't been as communicative as we should be or want to be. It's not that we're trying to keep any secrets, it's just that we're not getting it done. We recognize that we need to work on that. Thanks for the reminder.

...you're not privy to what's going on within the Trip Leader Committee or the Board of Directors. You shouldn't assume that nothing is going on simply because you don't see it. We've been working on an assessment program for a while and when we're finished with consultations and the program is complete, we'll put it into effect. If you want to have input into the program, I suggest that you renew your membership and have yourself reinstated as a Trip Leader.

As for the existing program, I think it's fair to say that requiring 50 hours of training in and of itself is a much more stingent standard than the 16 hours that the new ACA program requires. I applaud their efforts, but our program already exceeds their requirements.

There has always been an implicit pass/fail system in place, but it was kept low-key in order to keep it friendly and to avoid embarrasing people. I only know of one person who did not pass after completing the program (there may have been more), but there has always been significant attrition of candidates who found the course too demanding. Many of those who would not have passed, self-selected out of the program, to their credit. In some cases, it was suggested to people that they weren't ready for the program, either before they started it or part-way through. They were allowed to drop out voluntarily. Trip Leaders who overestimated their capabilities were gently reigned in. Again, this was in keeping with the philosophy of low-key assessment and keeping the process friendly. The truth is that Scott and Rick did a phenomenal job of doing all of this unobtrusively. Unfortunately, that's lead some people to think there never were any standards.

The whole risk/liability debate has made it clear that we need a more quantifiable standard and that's what we will have. However, we're also taking considerable pains to make sure that the new program retains the spirit of encouragement, cooperation, teamwork and friendship that's been the hallmark of the program all along. We fully intend to keep the "pass it forward" philosophy alive, as it's one of the things that's made the NSPN such a special organization.

...if you examine it closely, you'll see that the NSPN requirements for Trip Leaders are more stringent and our program has more than three times as much training time. Ironically, it would be a step backward for us to adopt their program.

Water will still leak in between the compass ball and the surround, then be trapped behind it. Brunton doesn't suggest sealing it, which is good enough for me.