Nick Schade

>East of Halifax Island, toward Corea, the waters struck me >as go all the way downeast or go home, because the >headlands don't leave much wiggle room to land on without >getting hammered. I think you mean Cutler. Corea is west of Halifax. Cutler is the home of the Navy's VLF submarine communications antenna which is visible as a ring of tall towers popularly known as the dinosaur cage. There are relatively few good camping places between Cutler and Lubec.

I paddle the area fairly frequently. That whole stretch of the Maine coast from Mt Desert to Machias is well worth a visit. The Great Wass is the home of fog and razor billed auks. It is a beautiful place to paddle. If you are in the area it is also well worth heading east to Roque Island and its neighbors. There are several MITA islands in the area, although some are nicer than others. Halifax down near Roque is a great place to camp. Several of us did a trip in 2004 from Jonesport to Frenchman Bay via Roque, Bois Bubert, and Petit Manan. Any of these places is well worth a trip.

In Photoshop CS try playing with: Image:Adjustments:Match Color Make two copies of the image select one area in one, and a different area in the other and run the color match. Keep selecting different areas in the second image. This should make an improvement, but if the different images are taken at different times, it will be difficult to get a really good color match.

>The path of the paddler's head and top heavy upper body when >falling over to the side, (while not moving), is >perpendicular to the long axis of the boat. Once the paddler >is moving forward, the path of the head and upper body while >falling over, now also has a forward component to it. How does this forward component effect the paddler's tendency to capsize? Does it somehow effect the acceleration of gravity? I.e. if someone is less likely to tip the side when they are moving forward, it can only be because that forward motion creates a force perpendicular to the motion. How does this work? > >Dr. Binks is referring to this part of Newton's First and in >this case the "vector (direction of force) of inertia >(tendency to stay in motion) is moved closer to the >longitudinal axis" and this is how ( direction of momentum ) >changes via forward movement from where it was while sitting >still. How does forward momentum effect side-to-side inertia? I can find no references to inertia being a vector. Inertia is related to mass and it can have a center or moment, but is not changed by velocity and it does not have a direction. Momentum is related to inertia but has the added factor of velocity and with that it has a direction and is a vector. But the fact that a paddler may have forward momentum does not mean that his inertia is changed by the motion. The simple fact of forward motion is not on its own enough to make you stable. All forward momentum provides is the tendency to keep moving forward. It does not effect your tendency to move towards the side. Try balancing a yard stick on your finger. Do it while standing still and again while walking forward. If there is a "vector of inertia" it will be easier to balance the stick while walking forward. I'm sure you will find that walking does not make it any easier. I am not saying paddling faster doesn't help you stay upright, just that the "vector of inertia" has nothing to do with it.

>increasing forward speed changes the vector of inertia >closer to the longtitudinal axis of the ski; i.e. away from >the perpendicular axis needed for a swim. Can you explain this please. I have never heard of a "vector of inertia" and can't imagine how it could move from one axis to another.

I haven't seen the new layups from Valley, but I have seen a nice pre-preg layup on a P&H sea kayak. Now all we need is NDK to get with the program.

>I also admit to being less than expert but offer the >following > >>...chopped strand mat...not cheapness but rather stiffness. If I >remember correctly, the random orienation of the fibers results in >a stiffer layup for the weight...a random orientation of mat would >>distribute impact better than woven fabric CSM maybe stiffer, but that is because the layup is thicker. Thicker -> stiffer. The reason the layup is thicker is because CSM is sort of "fluffy", i.e. it has a lot of space between the fibers. As a result a given weight of CSM absorbs a lot of resin and relatively speaking there is a small amount of glass for the weight of the boat. The bulk of the CSM makes it quite thick and thus stiff, it is not a result of fiber orientation. Stiff is good, if the material is strong enough to withstand the forces applied to it. Otherwise a flexible, resilient layup that bends gracefully may be able to distribute the load over a large area. As a result no one part of the boat will see high forces that are beyond the strength of the material. > >As noted elsewhere chopped strand would localize a puncture >but also localizes the "grain" of the mat and thus >sacrifices stiffness. The chopped strand does not >distribute impact along the woven fabric. Fiberglass boats are technically FRP "Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic." The whole purpose of adding any fiberglass at all to the plastic resin is to reinforce it. The way fiberglass does this is by distributing the load. If the glass does not do that, there is not much point in using it. You might as well just have a plastic boat, and there are better plastics for the job than polyester resin. Of course without the glass, hitting a polyester boat with a hammer would make a small, hammer head sized hole. If a small hole is desirable, eliminate the glass altogether. Obviously, this may cause other problems. > >>...gelcoat...wearability... > >Gelcoat serves primarily to protect the fiberglass from UV >degradation and associated environmental factors. In other words any more gelcoat than is strictly necessary to block the UV is superfluous. A couple mils is sufficient for UV protection. If there is enough gelcoat that it flakes off or cracks when you hit something that is a good sign that there is more than is needed. That extra gelcoat actually weakens the boat because when it cracks it causes localized stress in the glass below it. If the gelcoat is thin, it can bend without cracking or flaking off. If the gelcoat cracks, it shows that the gelcoat was trying to fill a structural role which it isn't suited to.

I have heard the localized damage rationalization also. It sounds like something a manufacturer comes up with after the fact to explain the choice of inferior materials. Given a choice between a catastrophic failure in one small area and a softening of a larger area, I think the less severe but larger damage is less likely to be dangerous. It is easier to paddle an intact boat that has a soft patch than it is one with even a small hole but a flooded compartment. And presented with a CSM boat that failed in a large area when slapped around by what sounds like a fairly small wave I would start to question the whole logic of the rationalization. Kevlar does have a tendency to get soft after extended use and abuse, but sticking with glass while substituting woven cloth for CSM, you can make a boat that is lighter, stronger and less likely to get any damage what-so-ever. http://eteamz.active.com/paddleshop/albums...x.cfm?id=239260 has video of a guy whaling on a glass layup with a hammer. Don't try this with a CSM layup. And just for completeness: adding a nice thick layer of gelcoat to the already brittle CSM layup only makes it heavier, weaker and more likely to sustain severe damage. It does make it take longer to wear through, but not as well as added layers of woven glass.

>Now that is a good news story as it was pretty depressing to >hear that a boat could get damaged like that. > Cue my rant about Chopped Strand Matte construction. There are several kayak manufacturers that use CSM to build their boats. While it is possible to do a good job or a shoddy job with this material, regardless of the skill of the labor doing the work, the result will be heavy and relatively fragile for its weight. Not only is the material brittle and heavy, it promotes poor workmanship and poor quality control because it is hard to inspect for quality issues. Mistakes are hard to see. This problem is further exacerbated by a tendency of manufacturers to use a pigmented resin on the inside of the boat. They do this because the CSM layup tends to be a little unsightly, even when under a layer of woven cloth, and the pigment looks a little better. This again causes quality control issues. Not only can't the buyer determine the quality of the layup, the builder can't either. Thus boats with flaws leave the factory, and customers buy them only to find out on the water if there is a problem. I am glad Valley and GRO stood by their product. Hopefully, the cost of this kind of issue will make them rethink how they build their otherwise fine boats.

I'm sorry for making the NDK assumption. But I would still make the assumption that in the areas where the gelcoat flaked off the outside that the glass has lost most of its strength. If the boat is going to be used where it might see similar forces again, I would want to completely replace that area of the boat.

From the looks of the pictures, I would say that it is very unlikely that you could get that much gelcoat damage without having significant structural damage in the underlying fiberglass. Unfortunately, due to NDK propensity of using pigmented resin on the inside of the boat, even severe structural damage may not be visible from the inside.

Reading through the ACA Assessment overview http://www.americancanoe.org/PDF/CKCAssess...rview8-8-05.pdf I found a paragraph I quite liked: There is a major difference between an assessment and a course. The course introduces a set of skills and body of knowledge to the student. An assessment measures the ability to use various skills and knowledge and rates the paddler accordingly. The courses listed below are recommended for each assessment level, but the skills covered in each course must be learned and absorbed in order to pass an assessment. As noted in the assessment descriptions above, paddling experience is also necessary and is just as important as course content. If I were to make any change it would be "paddling experience is also necessary and is more important than course content." Training will teach you what is in an assessment, experience will teach you why it is there. Training can get you headed down the right road. If you take the training and then use it for a while, an assessment will help you see if the training took. But training doesn't make you skilled and passing an assessment won't prove you are skilled. It is only with continued practice and experience gained on the water that you learn how, where and why you will need to put the training to use. I've been paddling with people who had very good technical skills. They could roll 10 ways from Sunday. They were willing to paddle right into the thick of it, confident in their ability to roll under any conditions. What they had not experienced was just how much force a large breaking wave can produce. Just like 4 wheel drive doesn't improve your braking, rolling doesn't protect you from getting the $#!+ kicked out of you. Luckily they were not hurt. With patience and determination anyone can learn to roll or perform any of the skills mandated by the certification requirements. Only experience will teach you to say "I ain't going there, that is too much for me."

>They are in the process of >developing a system similar to the BCU system... If I may be so bold, "They" is actually you. As a member of the ACA and as a member of what must be one of the bigger sea kayak clubs under the ACA umbrella, it seems to me that NSPN members are in a position to exert considerable influence on what the ACA does with regards to sea kayaks. As you probably already know in a club like NSPN or the ACA, things get done when someone has enough interest to go ahead and become active in getting it done. If you think "they" should do it, don't hold your breath. If it is important enough, get active yourself.

>Trust me... it's not a barrier. For many people the existence of esoteric terms is not a barrier but an attraction. It serves as a secret code that helps identify fellow members of the society. If you want to spend time rolling around in unusual kayaking jargon head over to QajaqUSA.org. I suspect a significant part of the attraction to Greenland style paddling is the chance to answer questions about those weird skinny paddles and throw around terms like "tuilik", "norsaq", and "masik" instead of "paddling top", "throwing stick" and "deck beam". Of course if you want people to recognize you as a BCU member, another word for "tuilik" is "cag". But, it is more fun if your jargon actually is a foreign language. FWIW, the "low dam" definition of "weir" has always been the first image brought to mind for this native born American. I guess it isn't a common term but it isn't a Britishism either.

>To address the four specific questions, in question: >- While it's true that there is actually a weir on the >Lamprey River in Newmarket, NH (the only active one on the >east coast, IIRC), it's pretty obvious when you see it that >you shouldn't paddle into it, even if you don't know what it >is. People paddling over low-head dams (i.e. a weir) is one of the more common ways to die in a kayak in the US. Low head dams are common, and they are difficult to see from the up stream. You may not realize the risk until it is too late. While the language used may be a little foreign, and the specific examples a little out-of-place, the general line of questioning strikes me as making sense. I don't really know what a "cag" is but understanding the difference between clothing intended to keep you dry vs one intended to be used wet is important. Safe paddling has virtually nothing to do with technical skill on the water, and everything to do with knowledge of what is safe and what isn't. A weak fat man in a rec boat without a PFD who has been paddling for 30 years is safer than the fully tricked out dude who just learned 32 different rolls in a pool and is going out into the surf for the first time. Skills are pointless without the knowledge base and judgment to use them safely. I am not a fan of certification, but if all it tests is the ability to perform a particular maneuver I would be even more against it.

>In general, I think ConnYak are eager to prove that a >"leaderless" model is not tantamount to total chaos, even on >a large paddle with many outsiders. As a Connyak member, I would say that we are not eager to prove anything about the leaderless model. It is more that we don't have the resources to implement the leader model in a way that is better in any significant way than not having a leader. Instead of promising a level of safety that we are incapable of providing, we leave it to participants to take responsibility for their own safety decisions.

A few north shore paddlers came down to the reefs off CT and RI last Saturday: http://www.guillemot-kayaks.com/albums/Tem...ry/P5210547.jpg http://www.guillemot-kayaks.com/albums/Tem...ry/P5210554.jpg http://www.guillemot-kayaks.com/albums/Tem...ry/P5210563.jpg http://www.guillemot-kayaks.com/albums/Tem...ry/P5210564.jpg