The PaddleWise Sponson Discussion
From: Dana Decker
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:06:28 -0500
Subject: [Paddlewise] [Paddlewise ?]
At 03:14 PM 1/28/98 -0800, rdiaz wrote:
>I see mainly folding kayaks in the startup day of PaddleWise. I hope we
>can switch to other subjects. Folding kayaks bore me :-)
>
To liven up the list I have a question that I really want answered and not
be thrown off the list for,( No I am not Tim Sp*ns*n ) Has any one really
had any experience with sponsons? In real life. I would not buy them
because of tim but can see that they could be good for some circumstance
but not for others. Most of the post on that other list were about tim or
scientific but I have learned that real use will tell the truth.(
Scientific - Bumble bees can't fly) I do not know any one that has used
them or owns them that will admit to it, so all I have is a negative feeling.
thanks I hope
Dana
PS sorry Jackie for using this list in vain with this post.
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 13:21:11 -0800 (PST)
From: Jackie Fenton
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] [Paddlewise ?]
No apologies necessary, Dana. As a matter of fact, I would have
eventually done the same because I *too* have had questions about
sponsons and their value. As well as other safety issues but felt
they couldn't be discussed on Wave~Length because of the reasons
I mentioned.
It would appear to me that under some circumstances, sponsons might
be as useful to have along as some other paddling equipment which
people take as safety back-ups. Especially in the case of an
injured or sick paddler.
So, I applaud your question and your fairly objective approach.
Tim was his worst enemy. He gave sponsons a bad name. Now, maybe
we can discuss the topic logically and openly and without fear.
Thanks, Dana.
Jackie
From: Mark Zen
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 14:23:40 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] [Paddlewise ?]
i offered many times to let tim demonstrate his product, and was quite
sincere in that offer... i am a handicapped paddler. i was able to roll an
open canoe once, but i was much healthier then. now there isn't much
chance, and i have taken up sea kayaking as an alternative to the OC1
i can unload it off the top of my short car onto my head, balance it to
the shore. and paddle quite happily. if i do drop it, that's ok, as
plastic was my first choice for the SK1, for that very reason... my OC1 is
a 15'8" custom glass/kevlar boat, both my SK1's are 14'4" plastic [pigs].
but lord, they are fun. one's for lakes, one's for WW.
i think i could have really used the sponsons, i think for the disabled
they would be great. on the other hand, i am a certified OC2 WW
instructor, so i have fair bracing skills, and have never come close to
going over in the SK1's. but by chance i do, my options are limited.
my [not so] humble opinion
mark
#------canoeist[at]netbox[dot]com--------------------------------------
mark zen o, o__ o_/| o_.
po box 474 </ [\/ [\_| [\_\
ft. lupton, co 80621-0474 (`-/-------/----') (`----|-------\-')
#~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@~~~~~~~@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@~~~~~~~~@~~~~~
http://www.diac.com/~zen/cpr [Colorado Paddlers' Resource]
http://www.diac.com/~zen/rmskc [Rocky Mtn Sea Kayak Club]
http://www.diac.com/~zen/rmcc [Rocky Mtn Canoe Club Trip Page]
http://www.diac.com/~zen/mark [personal]
--
From: Ralph Diaz
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:46:19 -0800
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] sponsons
Here is what I can say about sponsons, specifically the SeaWings
marketed and designed by Tim Ingram:
--They are extremely well-made. The bags and webbing are manufactured
by Voyageur for Tim. So you can bet it is fine product. That is why he
makes very little on them as what he basically gets is a royalty. The
company makes other similar products for other businesses, for example
the outrigger pontoons for Balogh Sail Designs. They are virtually
fail-safe, as fail-safe as anything can be. They tenacious hold air
with few in any cases of manufacturing defects or air loss.
--Once you take the time to figure out how to set them up and do all the
prepping you need to do in order to attach them in emergencies, the
actual deployment of them is not very difficult, basically get one bag
to the other side of the boat (you send it underneath to get there) and
snap 4 fasttex buckles, you are set. But, again, you need to pre set up
mating fastex buckles and shorten the straps to fit your particular
boat. Heaven help you if you have not done that pre-work. You could
not effect a self-rescue if you didn't.
--In actual paddling conditions, they cause a minimal amount of drag.
Basically they are barely touching the water if set up right and only
come into play if you are being tossed around, under which conditions
you might welcome their being there. I have seen this with a friend who
bought an Aerius 2000, the smaller Klepper folding kayak, in its earlier
version, which was quite tippy. He was uncomfortable with the boat (and
eventually sold it) but for awhile he got a comfort factor by using the
sponsons full time. It really hardly slowed things down, but it sure
looked strange.
--I know of a fellow who set up his Feathercraft K-1 for sailing and he
used the sponsons as close-in outriggers. It made it possible for him
to sail the boat with a Balogh rig (a pretty small 18 or so square
footer). It was important to him because he was sailing alone above the
Arctic Circle. The sponsons plus the ballast of all his gear created a
stable platform.
I have not had any personal experience with actual rescues using the
things. But I have heard of several examples in which they were
deployed and did save lives, or certainly gave the persons relating the
stories that the sponsons had saved them.
As for the military use and testing of the sponsons, Tim was telling the
truth (even a weaving drunk can walk a straight line some of the time).
They did test sponsons and I did see the report (I may have it around
somewhere). They tested them with Klepper and Nautiraid folding
kayaks. I personally fail to see why they would need them with those
boats as they are quite stable in and of themselves, especially with
lots of ordinance in them.
My opinion, for what it is worth, is that having a set of sponsons along
on club trips or group trips may not be a bad idea for an injured or a
paddler who has been a bit shaken by continuing dumping.
BTW, Feathercraft has included them as a self-rescue device with the
Khatsalano. At one point they came standard but I don't know if that is
still the case. Feathercraft's criteria is if the boat is not easy to
get back in without a paddle float (true of the Khats but not of any
other of their models) then they are safety conscious enough to want you
to have the sponsons. However, I do not know current company policy on
this.
best,
ralph
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Diaz . . . Folding Kayaker newsletter
PO Box 0754, New York, NY 10024
Tel: 212-724-5069;
"Where's your sea kayak?"----"It's in the bag."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: (Chuck Holst)
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:20:55 -0600
Subject: [Paddlewise] FW: [Paddlewise =?US-ASCII?Q?=3F]?=
I have never tried them myself, but I know four kayakers who
have. One is Andy Knapp, who is now a subscriber to Wave~
Length. He carried them on his Lake Superior crossing to use
with a sea anchor if the weather turned nasty or he became ill.
Since he chose his time well, he never used them. If I remember
correctly, he never tried them in waves higher than about a foot,
and I think he also mentioned that they were awkward to deploy.
Don Dimond also carried sponsons on his Great Lakes crossings
to use with a sea anchor in case of a storm or while relieving
himself in waves, but also never deployed them. He, also, has not
tried them in big waves. However, he told me they were a big
psychological comfort, and that he wrote Tim to say as much.
I have seen sponson clips on a kayak belonging to local sea
kayaking instructor Robert Wolf, but I have no idea why he
installed them, unless it was because he at one time planned
to make a crossing with Don.
The fourth kayaker, Clayton, I met in the Apostle Islands last
Memorial Day weekend. When I asked about the sponson
clips on his Nordkapp, he said he mostly paddled by himself,
and they were there to help him back into his kayak in case
he missed his roll. I later heard that Clayton then had no
experience with group rescues or paddle-float rescues (I don't
know about a reentry and roll -- he certainly had the skills if
not the practice).
So far, anyway, I have have never met a kayaker who could
not roll who was equipped with sponsons. It is my experience
that it is often the kayakers with the least skills and are the
least prepared who are the most sure of themselves -- and
that is the market Tim is aiming at.
Chuck Holst
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 17:36:26 -0600
From: wayne steffens
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] sponsons
At 04:46 PM 1/28/98 -0800, rdiaz wrote:
>
>My opinion, for what it is worth, is that having a set of sponsons along
>on club trips or group trips may not be a bad idea for an injured or a
>paddler who has been a bit shaken by continuing dumping.
I agree they might come in handy during emergencies, although Ive never
tried them. The problem is...where to get them. I will not under any
circumstance purchase a set of Tim's.
Wayne
PS-Jackie is my hero. Jackie for Paddlewise Paddlequeen.
From: Bob Myers
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 18:41:55 -0800
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] PaddleWise V1 #1
> Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:06:28 -0500
> From: dldecker
> Subject: [Paddlewise] [Paddlewise ?]
>
> At 03:14 PM 1/28/98 -0800, rdiaz wrote:
>
> To liven up the list I have a question that I really want answered and not
> be thrown off the list for,( No I am not Tim Sp*ns*n ) Has any one really
> had any experience with sponsons? In real life. I would not buy them
> because of tim but can see that they could be good for some circumstance
> but not for others. Most of the post on that other list were about tim or
> scientific but I have learned that real use will tell the truth.(
> Scientific - Bumble bees can't fly) I do not know any one that has used
> them or owns them that will admit to it, so all I have is a negative feeling.
Actually, the Feathercraft Khatsalano (not -S) used to be distributed
with a set of Tim's SeaWings external sponsons. (I don't know if they
still are.) Anyway, as I said in my last message, that boat is awfully
tippy for me. On my last paddle with the Khatsalano, I decided to try
out the sponsons since I was spending a lot of my energy just trying to
stay upright.
Ugh. I hated those things. It made my skinny little boat paddle like a
barge. Sure, it was probably safer, but they *really* slowed the boat
down, at least subjectively. I felt like I was plowing through the
water.
I gave up, went back to shore, and added more California
Ballast Rocks (tm). With inflated floatbags to keep the rocks in
place, I found ballast to be a much superior method of increasing
stability.
--
Bob Myers InteleNet Communications, Inc.
Email: bob@InteleNet.net 18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 550
Phone: 714-851-8250 x227 Irvine, CA 92612
Fax: 714-851-1088 http://www.intelenet.net/
From: John Winters
Subject: [Paddlewise] Sponsons
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 08:03:34 -0500
This is going to be a real treat - to talk about this sanely.
I did some testing of rescue devices on my vacation some time back. We
tested several devices in Pamlico Sound in 1 to 2' waves and here is what
we discovered about sponsons.
1. They do provide added stability as advertised and I could think of lots
of reasons why they would be useful.
2, They do install as advertised.
3. They do appear to be well made.
4. People do feel more secure in boats with the sponsons installed.
5. It was not possible to feel any difference in paddling performance
although one could feel it when the sponsons dug into the face of a wave if
the boat were heeled.
At this point I was favourably disposed towards them.
The next day two of our group wanted to run Oregon Inlet. (Great fun when
the on-shore breeze is not too strong) There was a strong on-shore breeze
coupled with the outgoing tide that produced large, steep breaking waves.
One of the paddlers was skilled. The other, who owned the sponsons, was
not. The wimp, me, took one look at it and stayed on shore.
As they paddled through both boats capsized. The skilled paddler rolled up
and braced the rest of the way through. The less skilled paddler attempted
to install his sponsons. A breaking wave literally threw the boat over his
head. He lost his grip and the boat floated away. The outgoing tide carried
him out to sea where he was rescued.
This event caused me to reassess the pros and cons of sponsons. We did
further tests in heavy breaking waves and these were our observations.
1. The added form stability increased the chance of capsize in beam
breaking seas.
2. When one is re-entering it is best to do it from the upwind side so you
can hold on to the boat even in large breaking waves.
3. So long as the boat was held at right angles to the waves the sponsons
improved the feeling of security.
4. I was sometimes difficult for less skilled paddlers to be methodical
about installing them in really hairy conditions. Fear appeared to play a
large part in how they performed their tasks.
>From this I concluded the following.
1. Sponsons can be useful but they have drawbacks and there are conditions
where they are detrimental. From this I felt that sponsons could not be
considered the "ultimate" rescue device
2. Any rescue method that involves a wet exit increases your risk as
opposed to a method that allows you to stay in your boat. Separation from
your boat is always increased in a wet exit.
3. It is unrealistic to expect inexperienced paddlers to remember to
install their sponsons before trouble just as it is unrealistic to expect
novice paddlers to keep their boats properly oriented to the waves although
sponsons do make that task easier.
On returning to Canada I ran some studies comparing boats with sponsons and
geosims having the same stability. {A geosim is a similar shape but with
dimension(s) changed} For this test I used a Nordkapp. I found that when
the beam of a Nordkapp is increased to the point where it had the same
stability as the Nordkapp with sponsons the performance was not all that
severely affected and it was unlikely that a novice would notice the
difference in resistance. The more uniform shape of the wider boat should
(I say should because I don't know) be easier to handle than a sponsons
equipped boat since the shape would not alter drastically with heel). Here
I should point out that I use the term "sponson" differently from some boat
manufacturers. The long built in inflatable tubes on some folding boats are
integral to the hull and, while they bulge out the hull, they are not
really "additions" to the hull. It is a fine point but is important in the
discussion as I hope will become obvious later.
I then shifted the center of gravity on the narrow and wide boats and could
easily duplicate the stability of either boat just by shifting the CG. This
explains why wide expedition boats are not dangerous when loaded. Load the
boat heavily enough and get the CG low enough and it will offset the
negative effects of beam. I recently read Hannes Lindemann's book and sure
enough he mentions this effect several times and was much concerned about
it.
>From this I concluded that;
1. If stability is a reassuring factor to a paddler he is better off
having it built into the boat rather than increasing his risk by having to
put it on after an accident when the chances of separation from the boat
increase with time spent in the water. This would be particularly true in
cold weather.
2. That form stability can be, as Marchaj and others have shown, a bummer
unless accompanied with adequate displacement and a low enough CG.
3. That sponsons serve a useful purpose for those who are doing long
crossings of open water in higher performance boats that have insufficient
stability for easy re-entry or for proper rest at sea.
4. That sponsons are a definite asset to those who physically cannot roll a
low stability boat and insist on paddling a low stability boat.
5. If sponsons are used they are best used in conjunction with a sea anchor
to assure the boat will not be turned beam on to breaking seas.
In a general way I concluded that there is no end all and be all of self or
group rescue. Every method and device has is pros and cons. My observations
were that people thought they were very safe because they had skills and
devices and my experience had shown that, on a subconscious level and
sometimes on a conscious level, they seemed to be taking greater, and
possibly excessive, risks because of them.
At that point I became interested in accident prevention and risk
homeostasis although I did not know at the time that was what it was.
Cheers
John Winters
Redwing Designs
Specialists in Human Powered Watercraft
http://home.ican.net/~735769/
From: Chuck Holst
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 09:16:40 -0600
Subject: [Paddlewise] FW: sponsons
>>>
At 04:46 PM 1/28/98 -0800, rdiaz wrote:
>
>My opinion, for what it is worth, is that having a set of sponsons along
>on club trips or group trips may not be a bad idea for an injured or a
>paddler who has been a bit shaken by continuing dumping.
Since the clips have to be installed and adjusted beforehand,
how would a set of sponsons carried by the leader benefit a
paddler who probably is not set up for them?
Chuck Holst
From: John Winters
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] PaddleWise V1 #1
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 08:39:26 -0500
Bob Myers wrote;
> I gave up, went back to shore, and added more California
> Ballast Rocks (tm). With inflated floatbags to keep the rocks in
> place, I found ballast to be a much superior method of increasing
> stability.
If Bob had used the New Zealand Floating Pumice Ballast Rocks he wouldn't
have needed the floatbags.
Ballast rock technology is the most exciting field in sea kayaking and is
drawing the best minds to R&D labs around the world.
There are rumors that Intel is developing a ballast chip. Much smaller than
rocks and your boat will be faster, sound better, and remember the way
home.
The Russians are supposedly developing a ballast system based on
contaminated rocks from the Chernobyl site. When mounted under your seat
you get free sterilization after four weeks of paddling.
Onward and upward.
Cheers
John Winters
Redwing Designs
Specialists in Human Powered Watercraft
http://home.ican.net/~735769/
From: Ralph Diaz
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 11:46:20 -0800
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] FW: sponsons
Chuck Holst wrote:
>
> Since the clips have to be installed and adjusted beforehand,
> how would a set of sponsons carried by the leader benefit a
> paddler who probably is not set up for them?
>
> Chuck Holst
That is a good point. Boats are not likely to be set up for them.
However, the pre-setup is absolutely crucial for someone alone. If
within a group, rafting up and several set of hands attacking the
project would get it done pretty quickly even without a pre-setup.
In the case of a group, I don't see the sponsons as a _rescue_ device,
afterall an assisted rescue would be quicker and more effective over a
wide range of conditions. I see it as a moving-on device for the dumped
paddler to paddle away toward the next beach or safety point. In so
many dumping situations, the affected paddler is so prone to continuing
dumping again. Some of the classic episodes in Sea Kayaker and other
reports attest to this. The sponsons stop the dumping pretty much and
give the paddler a chance to regain composure. That is where I see the
real value of sponsons.
ralph
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Diaz . . . Folding Kayaker newsletter
PO Box 0754, New York, NY 10024
Tel: 212-724-5069;
"Where's your sea kayak?"----"It's in the bag."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 11:21:15 -0600
From: Dan Hagen
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] sponsons
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned one of the best uses for
sponsons. I have a pair (as well as a paddle float and a roll "Back-Up"
device). I have never had to wet-exit, so I don't know how they work in
"real-life" situations as a rescue device, but it seems that they would
quite useful in moderate chop on long crossings when one needs to, ahem,
"heed the call of nature"--and I am not referring to the number 1
variety. (Is that sufficiently oblique to have avoided offending
anyone?) Indeed I think that sponsons would be superior to a paddle
float for this "application". Comments?
Dan Hagen
From: Ted Whitney
Subject: RE: [Paddlewise] sponsons
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 11:45:52 -0800
I think there is an article by Randy Frye in the February 1997 issue of
Sea Kayaker that mentions this use of sponsons on a Baja crossing.
Ted Whitney
From: Ralph Diaz
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 14:43:37 -0800
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] sponsons
Dan Hagen wrote:
>
> I'm surprised that no one has mentioned one of the best uses for
> sponsons. I have a pair (as well as a paddle float and a roll "Back-Up"
> device). I have never had to wet-exit, so I don't know how they work in
> "real-life" situations as a rescue device, but it seems that they would
> quite useful in moderate chop on long crossings when one needs to, ahem,
> "heed the call of nature"--and I am not referring to the number 1
> variety. (Is that sufficiently oblique to have avoided offending
> anyone?) Indeed I think that sponsons would be superior to a paddle
> float for this "application". Comments?
>
> Dan Hagen
>
Yes, it beats the alternative solution, i.e. rafting up with some
friends so you can take care of that bodily function need. One of the
more hilarious of Derek Hutchinson's tales is of his North Sea
crossing. He had to meet this need and rafted up with several of his
companions. While they were using the occasion to have breakfast, he
was getting rid of processed materials from the previous night's
dinner. I think they are all still friends. :-)
Actually that is one of the unheralded nice things about most folding
kayaks. You can do those things in mild chop without rafting up or
resorting to sponsons. My advice though is, until you get to know how
to handle this function in chop, to use a borrowed boat. ;-)
ralph diaz
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Diaz . . . Folding Kayaker newsletter
PO Box 0754, New York, NY 10024
Tel: 212-724-5069;
"Where's your sea kayak?"----"It's in the bag."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 16:56:48 -0800
From: Keith Kaste
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] FW: sponsons
Is Ingram the only supplier of sponsons? Where can I get the air bladders so
that I can make my own? Whereas they probably have no place in sudden storm
conditions, sponsons are probably worth having for towing an incapacitated boat
and/or paddler.
From: Ralph Diaz
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 21:18:02 -0800
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] FW: sponsons
I recall see some similar type product in mail order catalogues like
Wyoming River Traders or a name like that. I am certain there are some
around. I have seen them in catalogues for use on canoes.
I will just have to search through all my old catalogues to see what I
can come up with. Mind you, the SeaWings, are really well made and
decently designed to serve their function. I believe that Voyageur,
which makes them for Tim, is contractually limited to how they can
provide them to the public, i.e. it is Tim's patent.
ralph
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Diaz . . . Folding Kayaker newsletter
PO Box 0754, New York, NY 10024
Tel: 212-724-5069;
"Where's your sea kayak?"----"It's in the bag."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 19:05:46 -0800
From: Keith Kaste
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] FW: sponsons
Hi Ralph,
Do you have the patent number? Is it Canadian only? First of all, I almost can't
imagine Tim putting together a good patent claim. Secondly, the prior art goes back
probably several hundred years. Thanks for the reference on Voyageur. My K-light,
as almost all folding boats, has internal sponsons. I suppose Feathercraft as well
as Klepper and Folbot might be able to direct me to their sponson supplier.
Thanks for the info,
Keith
From: Jim Croft
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] FW: sponsons
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 14:11:45 +1100 (EST)
> ... Whereas they probably have no place in sudden storm
> conditions, sponsons are probably worth having for towing an
> incapacitated boat and/or paddler.
There have been a couple of instances on our club trips when such
devices would have been handy. When a normally adequate paddler became
seasick in big seas to the extent of being unable to stay upright, one
person had to tow the victim, while another had to hold him and his boat
upright while being colourfully spewed upon, so the tower had two dead
weights to deal with...
It has happened at least twice...
If sponsons had been available, maybe both able paddlers could have towed
the victim in a tandem V-tow... maybe not...
If there had only been two paddlers on the water that day, they would
have been in a right pickle...
-- jim
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 23:25:41 -0500
From: Greg Stamer
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] FW: sponsons
Just an idea....
A clever technique that I have only experimented with during safety clinics
is to fit *each* end of the victims paddle with an inflated paddlefloat.
This gives a tremendous amount of support for even very weak attempts at
bracing. A successful use of this method was published in a SK magazine
accident report four or more years ago. Depending on the circumstances, an
incapacitated paddler may very well be able to stay upright with this
method during a tow without having to raft up with another kayak.
Greg Stamer
Orlando, Florida
From: George Gronseth
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] FW: sponsons
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 22:42:26 -0800
> Greg Stamer wrote:
> Just an idea....
>
> A clever technique that I have only experimented with during safety clinics
> is to fit *each* end of the victims paddle with an inflated paddlefloat.
> This gives a tremendous amount of support for even very weak attempts at
> bracing. A successful use of this method was published in a SK magazine
> accident report four or more years ago. Depending on the circumstances, an
> incapacitated paddler may very well be able to stay upright with this
> method during a tow without having to raft up with another kayak.
Thanks Greg. I think the Sea Kayaker article was
more than five years ago (a title something like "Superior
Trouble", it was not one of my articles).
I'll add a couple further comments:
Depending how out-of-it the victim is, he or she can
either hold the paddle across
their lap - ready to lean on it for support or the paddle
can be slid through the rear deck
lines as it would be for a paddle float self-rescue, except that
the paddle would in this case be centered.
Secondly:
As for towing with more than one kayak doing the work,
I've had better results with towing single file rather than
in a wishbone manner (which tended to jerk everyone
involved more). To do this I've clipped each tower's rope
together end to end, and attached each tower's towing
harness (sling, rope attached to towing belt in
PFD, etc.) at their respective junction in the rope chain.
I can't say that this is always the best way, but in my
limited experiments with trying both methods of using
multiple towers the single file system seemed the
better solution. I've actually only done this with two
towers, but as long as everyone had a tow rope, the
concept could be repeated to include more
towers...another reason every kayak should carry
a tow rope. In case anyone is wondering, it definitely
makes towing faster and easier to have more than
one person pulling.
As a historical aside, I've seen old photos of Eskimos
working together this way (at least six kayaks in a row)
to tow a whale.
Further, as with other skills, towing (and freeing oneself
from the tow) should be practiced before it is needed.
George Gronseth (Co-author of "Sea Kayaker Deep Trouble")
Kayak Academy
2512 NE 95th St.
Seattle, WA 98115
www.halcyon.com/kayak/
From: John Winters
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] FW: sponsons
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 07:03:42 -0500
Keith wrote;
>
> Do you have the patent number? Is it Canadian only? First of all, I almost can't
> imagine Tim putting together a good patent claim. Secondly, the prior art goes back
> probably several hundred years. Thanks for the reference on Voyageur. My K-light,
> as almost all folding boats, has internal sponsons. I suppose Feathercraft as well
> as Klepper and Folbot might be able to direct me to their sponson supplier.
>
I have not looked into what Tim's patent says but I doubt if it is a
supportable patent except in a very narrow way. That is often the way with
patents. One has to define them so narrowly that it becomes easy to
circumvent them. Also, one has to be willing to go to court to support your
claim and that is risky expensive business.
Having been through this business myself both as an expert witness in
support of a patent (the case was lost - maybe I wasn't expert enough) and
also as a patent seeker the costs of a patent just aren't worth it unless
one really has a great idea that will make tons of money. My lawyer says
most people get patents just for bragging purposes. He calls them vanity
patents.
I doubt if the sponson concept itself can be patented. As Keith points out,
the basic idea is older than Moses.
Cheers
John Winters
Redwing Designs
Specialists in Human Powered Watercraft
http://home.ican.net/~735769/
From: John Winters
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] FW: sponsons
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 08:44:22 -0500
> I agree they might come in handy during emergencies, although Ive never
> tried them. The problem is...where to get them. I will not under any
> circumstance purchase a set of Tim's.
I don't know who makes them but I know that Seda sells sponsons. They may
make their own and may not have to pay Tim's royalty.
Cheers
John Winters
Redwing Designs
Specialists in Human Powered Watercraft
http://home.ican.net/~735769/
From: John Winters
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] FW: sponsons
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 08:43:11 -0500
Greg wrote;
> > A clever technique that I have only experimented with during safety clinics
> > is to fit *each* end of the victims paddle with an inflated paddlefloat.
> > This gives a tremendous amount of support for even very weak attempts at
> > bracing. A successful use of this method was published in a SK magazine
> > accident report four or more years ago. Depending on the circumstances, an
> > incapacitated paddler may very well be able to stay upright with this
> > method during a tow without having to raft up with another kayak.
After having bad luck with our paddle float rescue tests I called Matt
Brose who sent me his rigging instructions. Once rigged in his suggested
manner we had much better luck so my first feelings that paddle floats were
not so good had to be modified. We had rigged ours poorly. We also tried
the paddle float outrigger idea that Greg suggests and it seemed viable
although we did not have rough enough conditions to see what would happen
in really big waves. Hannes Lindeman used a paddle outrigger with an inner
tube on the end and seemed to feel that the outrigger contributed to his
two capsizes.
I can think of some advantages to the paddle float outrigger concept. It
provides options in one device (paddle float rescue, fixed outrigger,
improved bracing as paddle augmentation, and as a roll assist. This has a
lot of merit to my mind since one device is doing multiple duty.
George's comments about towing are good. The reverse of this (one boat
towing many boats) is the method used by yacht clubs to tow small
sailboats. Whether they are towed in after a storm or just no wind this
method (each boat tying on to a single tow rope) reduces the strain on the
boats and eliminates the inevitable banging together that happens with a
fan tow. They use tow ropes with lops spliced into them for the purpose. It
also reduces the strain on the first boat. I once saw a bow fitting ripped
out of the first boat in a multiple boat tow when they were tied end to
end.
The method used for tying on was a slip knot that could be quickly popped
loose if a boat capsized or otherwise came to grief. One doesn't want to be
fumbling about untying knots in an emergency. In a kayak a line around the
waist with a slip knot is simple, cheap and doesn't cause the boat to be
jerked around. Probably more sophisticated ways but I am such a cheap
beggar.
Cheers
John Winters
Redwing Designs
Specialists in Human Powered Watercraft
http://home.ican.net/~735769/
From: Chuck Holst
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 17:51:43 -0600
Subject: [Paddlewise] FW: FW: sponsons
My wife and I had to demonstrate both a line tow and a contact
tow to pass the BCU Four Star proficiency assessment last
year. We towed in tandem, and it was very easy. I think every
kayaker should be prepared to assist in a tow -- the more, the
merrier.
The preferred way around here for a long tow is to run the line
through a fairlead on the centerline of the kayak to a cam cleat
just behind and to one side of the cockpit, where a simple jerk
can release it. (Sophisticated paddlers, too.) The tow line has a
shock cord tied to it to minimize jerking, and is stowed on deck
in a bag ready for action. (The tow line is continuous, and spirals
around the shock cord.)
I have also seen tow belts, resembling a small fanny pack, that
have quick-release Fastex buckles. However, I understand that
they can be tiring on long tows, especially in waves, though
they do have the advantage that they can be passed from one
kayak to another.
Chuck Holst
From: Mark Zen
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 18:55:08 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] FW: FW: sponsons
you can pass the tow rope from boat to boat if you all have cam-cleats
too... nothing extra [as far as weight either] cam cleat release better
than fastex buckles, under stress/emergency [at least in my experience].
this is from towing open boats in white/moving water while the boater
swims out... and if you've done that you know it's more "dragging" than
towing!! the waist belts i've seen would have been uncomfotable under high
stress pulling, but besides the fastex buckle, one i saw had a ripcord
type pin [similar to a cotter pin], held in place by pressure, and velcro.
pull the pin, rope's gone...
YMMV
mark
#------canoeist[at]netbox[dot]com--------------------------------------
mark zen o, o__ o_/| o_.
po box 474 </ [\/ [\_| [\_\
ft. lupton, co 80621-0474 (`-/-------/----') (`----|-------\-')
#~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@~~~~~~~@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@~~~~~~~~@~~~~~
http://www.diac.com/~zen/cpr [Colorado Paddlers' Resource]
http://www.diac.com/~zen/rmskc [Rocky Mtn Sea Kayak Club]
http://www.diac.com/~zen/rmcc [Rocky Mtn Canoe Club Trip Page]
http://www.diac.com/~zen/mark [personal]
--
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 19:44:46 +1500
From: Wayne Langmaid
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Holding On
G'day -
John Winters makes a point about putting on sponsons in conditions that
are less than ideal (forgive me John if I don't quote you exactly, but I
really do not have not much time to fully read and absorb the articles
other than speed reading - and deleting!)
As I have stated before, as a professional kayak guide, I get out onto
the water a lot with our business and with private trips (at least 25
days each month on average). I have observed that it can be absolute
hell to hold onto those deck lines on your boat in rougher conditions
(I'm talking over two meter swell with breaking tops). I'd also like to
say that, in my mind, for truly "experienced" paddlers this is often not
all that serious, depending on a variety of factors. Having decklines
can give quite a sense of false security.
The problem is, once you are out of the boat and in the water that boat
is a very potentially lethal weapon. The mass of the boat means that it
catches a lot of water. Also, the lengths of most kayaks mean that once
you are out of the kayak, large sections of the boat (especially at the
stern and the bow) are not in the water or on the waves at the same
time. It can nearly rip your fingers off as the wave catches it or the
bow or stern rocket up or down. Often I can relate it to what I think
it must be like getting back onto a very uncooperative bucking bronco.
I do not come out of my boat very often and if it does occur, it usually
happens in over two meter surf after a day of playing around when I
should have already gone home. I have had some pretty serious bruising
of my fingers come out of gripping those deck lines and that is holding
onto the kayak amidships where there is less dramatic movement than at
the stern or the bow!!
I just can't fathom how anyone would be able to safely put sponsons on
in those conditions. OK, maybe it should be argued that one should not
be there, but I am talking about having just spent the last four hours
playing in that surf, run after run, and then every now and then on rare
occaisions coming unstuck.
I have to say that avoidance of the situation and solid paddling skills
training is far better than being beside that darn boat as it bucks and
heaves and attempts to do a good job of ripping your arms and fingers
from their normal positions and stoving in your head shoulders or any
other part of your anatomy.
Just the view of a guy who spends a lot of time on the water (and
sometimes, much to my chagrin - in it).
Regards
Wayne Langmaid
Central Coast Kayak Tours - Australia
From: John Winters
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Holding On
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 08:58:31 -0500
Wayne wrote;
(SNIP)
> The problem is, once you are out of the boat and in the water that boat
> is a very potentially lethal weapon. The mass of the boat means that it
> catches a lot of water. Also, the lengths of most kayaks mean that once
> you are out of the kayak, large sections of the boat (especially at the
> stern and the bow) are not in the water or on the waves at the same
> time. It can nearly rip your fingers off as the wave catches it or the
> bow or stern rocket up or down. Often I can relate it to what I think
> it must be like getting back onto a very uncooperative bucking bronco.
> I do not come out of my boat very often and if it does occur, it usually
> happens in over two meter surf after a day of playing around when I
> should have already gone home. I have had some pretty serious bruising
> of my fingers come out of gripping those deck lines and that is holding
> onto the kayak amidships where there is less dramatic movement than at
> the stern or the bow!!
(SNIP)
What Wayne is talking about here is worth considering. For instance, if
kayak "A" requires additional stability for re-entry (either with a paddle
float, sponsons or whatever) and the addition of the device makes the boat
safer by allowing re-entry then why wouldn't a boat that already has that
stability designed into it be much better?
I think we would all agree that the more time one spends in the water and
the more one has to do while immersed the greater our risk of being
separated from the boat. Therefor it is logical to argue that, not only
should a boat have sufficient stability for re-entry stability but, that
stability should not be dependent upon any device that must be installed
after capsize.
certainly for handicapped paddlers sponsons would be a poor solution to
the problem since the handicapped person would be forced to either paddle
all the time with the sponsons (in which case he might as well have a
properly designed boat) or he would be forced to manage installing them
after the fact when, as Wayne points out, success is not guaranteed.
Cheers
John Winters
Redwing Designs
Specialists in Human Powered Watercraft
http://home.ican.net/~735769/
Date: Sun, 01 Feb 1998 09:56:27 -0700
From: Philip Wylie
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Holding On
This problem of having to handle a wild or difficult to restrain Kayak in such waters,
described by Wayne, leave me somewhat chilled out by the idea of going through
an additional fight to intall straps and proper positoning of a set of sponsons.
Moreover having to inflate them would be challenging to my breath. Accepting the
cold plus having to blow something up while dealing with a bucking kayak would be a
bit much. I perceive that manually inflated sponsons would be suitable only for smooth
or calm waters and what is needed is a CO-2 cartridge inflatable system, not a manuel
inflatable one, for situations where there is a severe wave chop.
Such a design would likewise get rid of the setup inconvenience of fastening straps
and their associated drag.
Why can't sponsons be merely attatched on the sides or edge of the gunwales
in reserve for emergencies. Would you not think that this would be better? Would
this not make sponsons more desirable and functional since it would be easier
to initiate their deployment much the same as a scuba divers life vest?
I don't know. If one is in the business of manufacturing sponsons perhaps a little more
Research and Development could be brought to bear on the design. The way they
are presently designed by Ingram suggests they are certainly not the panacea he
makes them out to be. I would think there exists enough talent among this list
of subscribers to solve the problem. Gee, you might even be able to put Ingram out
of business with a superior design. The ultimate question to be answered, however,
remains: is there really a need for them?
Regards,
Philip
From: John Winters
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Holding On
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 07:23:06 -0500
Phillip wrote;
(SNIP)
There will always be a use for such things as sponsons. It is up to the
individual to decide if there is a need and to recognize any shortcomings
the equipment may have.
No doubt sponsons could be improved. Nothing is perfect. One could also
take another approach. Why not make sponsons redundant? Why not design
boats with enough stability to allow wet re-entry without having to use
sponsons?
Cheers
John Winters
Redwing Designs
Specialists in Human Powered Watercraft
http://home.ican.net/~735769/
From: Brian Jones
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Holding On
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 08:05:33 -0500
John:
Wouldn't providing enough initial stability to enable reentering require
increasing the beam so much as to reduce final stability to the point that
capsize in the first place could conceivably be more likely?
Brian
From: Scott (KiAyker)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 08:31:58 EST
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Holding On
In a message dated 98-02-02 07:29:25 EST, John Winters writes:
<< No doubt sponsons could be improved. Nothing is perfect. One could also
take another approach. Why not make sponsons redundant? Why not design
boats with enough stability to allow wet re-entry without having to use
sponsons? >>
For years I have been teaching paddlers how to re-enter a kayak without
sponsons or paddle float. I find that the majority of paddlers can, with a
little practice and the right technique, climb back into their kayaks quickly
with a fair amount of ease. Onced learned I have had my students successfully
manage to climb back into their boats in the surf zone between waves. This is
the technique I use for jumping in and out of my boat for spearfishing, and I
paddle a boat with a 22.5" beam. Of course this implies learning and
practicing a new skill, which at least for myself I find much more enjoyable
and handy then loading my boat down with a bunch of safety equipment (which
incidentally also requires learning and practicing how to use properly).
Scott
So.Cal.
From: Chuck Holst
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 09:20:26 -0600
Subject: [Paddlewise] FW: FW: FW: sponsons
While it is true that a tow rope could be passed to a kayak
equipped with a cam cleat, I would think that a sea kayak
equipped with a cam cleat would have its own tow rope.
Also, it is an unfortunate fact that only a small minority of
sea kayaks have any kind of towing arrangement.
Chuck Holst
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 17:05:08 +0000
From: Colin Calder
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Holding On
> For years I have been teaching paddlers how to re-enter a kayak without
>sponsons or paddle float. I find that the majority of paddlers can, with a
>little practice and the right technique, climb back into their kayaks quickly
>with a fair amount of ease. Onced learned I have had my students successfully
>manage to climb back into their boats in the surf zone between waves. This is
>the technique I use for jumping in and out of my boat for spearfishing, and I
>paddle a boat with a 22.5" beam. Of course this implies learning and
>practicing a new skill, which at least for myself I find much more enjoyable
>and handy then loading my boat down with a bunch of safety equipment (which
>incidentally also requires learning and practicing how to use properly).
>
>Scott
>So.Cal.
Scott, so what's your technique ?
Although I have only tried this in a protected harbor, I found that I could
quite easily climb back into my 22" beam boat without any aides other than
paddle. My technique was basically to put the paddle across the righted
boat, holding paddle and decklines on each side of the boat behind the
cockpit. With the (feathered) paddle aligned with the blade on my side in a
low brace position, I ducked under the water and with the assist of
wetsuit/pfd buoyancy and a leg kick quickly pull my body onto the rear deck,
facing forward, with one leg over each side. With legs in the water this is
surprisingly stable even with an empty boat, and the paddle is in your hands
ready to brace or sweep. I can then pull myself forward until I can slide
down to sit into the cockpit, feet still in the water. I have a boat with a
large key hole cockpit, and I can then bring my feet in from this position.
I'm not pushing this method for self rescue .... infact I've only done it
twice in flatish water - but it really was quite simple, and worked with an
unladen boat the first time I tried it. In rough water, with waves breaking
into the open cockpit ....
Playing about getting in/out/on boats is fun, but if I was out for a paddle
at sea I would rather concentrate on :
not falling over
if I fall over, not coming out of my boat :-)
I have generally enjoyed these discussions, but does anyone else wonder
why we can spend such a disproportionate amount of time pondering self
rescue methods, to the actual amount of time that they are required ?
Climbers who spend all their time talking about rope work and protection are
generally novices - after a while they either stop climbing or are more
interested in talking about climbs, moves, trips etc.
If you are a novice paddler likely to fall out of your boat in conditions
where paddle float/sponson/device X rescues are feasible, and being a novice
you are foolish enough to choose to go out alone in conditions where you are
likely to fall over, then OK I can see the mileage in discussing solo ways
to get back in. However, the recent survey on wave~length demonstrated that
for paddlers with a bit of experience falling out of your boat in strait
forward conditions isn't terribly important and I guess that many would
agree that conditions which actually threatened most paddlers with ejection
from the boat would:
- ideally be solved by a very speedy re-entry to regain control of
the boat
- probably prevent self rescue by any method other than re-entry and roll
- alternatively be solved with assistance by rescue from a companion
or tow to better conditions.
For me it follows then that there is simple hierarchy of successful
responses which solve the dilemma of being upside down:
1 roll back up
2 wet exit, re-enter and roll back up
3 recruit companion for assisted rescue
If you can perform the first two options then fine, no problem, hey you'r
sea kayaking ... having fun! If you can't perform 1 or 2 then your
friendly paddling companions can assist you with 3. Oh! you forgot your
companions ? Hmm, after exhausting the possibilities with the inflatable
bags you have a wee while in the water to ponder the error of your ways ....
What was it Arthur Ransome wrote in the classic 'Swallows and Amazons' ...
something like 'Better drowned than duffers, If not duffers wont drown' ?
Cheers
Colin
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 17:47:12 -0800
From: Dan Hagen
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Holding On
John Winters wrote:
> There will always be a use for such things as sponsons. It is up to the
> individual to decide if there is a need and to recognize any shortcomings
> the equipment may have.
>
> No doubt sponsons could be improved. Nothing is perfect. One could also
> take another approach. Why not make sponsons redundant? Why not design
> boats with enough stability to allow wet re-entry without having to use
> sponsons?
How would this make sponsons redundant? Forgive me if I am a bit slow,
but I really do not understand your point. Of course one could design a
boat which, due to it's substantial beam, always has the same stability
as Boat X with sponsons deployed. But the problem with such an approach
is that you cannot reduce the beam for those times when a less beamy
boat is desired. With sponsons you can increase the beam *temporarily*
for the purpose of taking a crap or a nap (or whatever), and then reduce
the beam once it is time to paddle. How do you intend to achieve this if
the boat is beamy to begin with? Personally, I do not like the feel of
beamy boats, but I do like the option of temporarily increasing the
beam. As always, this is just my humble opinion.
Dan Hagen
Bellingham, Washington
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 18:17:11 -0500
From: "Tom..."
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Holding On
At 05:47 PM 2/2/98 -0800, Dan Hagen wrote:
snip----->
> But the problem with such an approach
>is that you cannot reduce the beam for those times when a less beamy
>boat is desired. With sponsons you can increase the beam *temporarily*
>for the purpose of taking a crap or a nap (or whatever), and then reduce
>the beam once it is time to paddle.
snip----->
> Personally, I do not like the feel of
>beamy boats, but I do like the option of temporarily increasing the
>beam. As always, this is just my humble opinion.
>Dan Hagen
Now here, HERE is what I consider a good use for these things... uh...
any suppliers on the west coast near us? 'Fraid the price would be just
too high from the supplier out Georgian Bay way...
Lake Washington looked tooo good today, I saw it often as I packed
boxes... whata time to pick to move... Heh!
Take care,
Tom...
Kirkland, Washington
Three left turns make a right...
-T.W.
From: John Winters
Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] Holding On
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 07:38:40 -0500
Brian wrote;
(SNIP)
:
>
> Wouldn't providing enough initial stability to enable reentering require
> increasing the beam so much as to reduce final stability to the point that
> capsize in the first place could conceivably be more likely?
Not necessarily. Stability is obtained in four basic ways.
1. Lowering the CG.
2. Increasing displacement
3. Increasing waterplane area.
4.Increasing beam.
The first and second do not increase the capsizing moments in rough water
and favorably increase the stability range. The third does not have to
increase the capsizing moments so much as increasing beam since it can be
done while retaining narrow beam.
In addition it is also possible to shape the hull in such a way as to
increase the stability range (secondary stability) without increasing
initial stability. Usually this is accomplished through flared topsides.
Dan wrote;
> How would this make sponsons redundant? Forgive me if I am a bit slow,
> but I really do not understand your point. Of course one could design a
> boat which, due to it's substantial beam, always has the same stability
> as Boat X with sponsons deployed. But the problem with such an approach
> is that you cannot reduce the beam for those times when a less beamy
> boat is desired. With sponsons you can increase the beam *temporarily*
> for the purpose of taking a crap or a nap (or whatever), and then reduce
> the beam once it is time to paddle. How do you intend to achieve this if
> the boat is beamy to begin with? Personally, I do not like the feel of
> beamy boats, but I do like the option of temporarily increasing the
> beam. As always, this is just my humble opinion.
You are not slow. Stability takes up a large portion of most naval
architecture books and is an extremely complicated topic. The nature of
stability changes as the boat heels beyond seven to ten degrees and what
seems good at low angles of heel is not good at high angles of heel. More
importantly the nature of stability provided by form differs from that
provided by displacement and CG location. I hope the response to Brian's
question clears that up a bit.
My suggestion was not that everyone should have any type of boat. It was
that there are other ways of skinning this cat. They will not please
everyone just as no one boat will please everyone. Sponsons are one method
of solving certain problems but they aren't the only solution or maybe not
even the best solution for some types of paddling or paddlers. The
introduction of another solution should not be construed as a criticism of
any solution but rather the introduction of another possibility that may be
"better" for some one.
We have heard here from people who do wet re-entries into narrow boats
without any assist. Some might prefer to put ashore for a nap. Some have
clever methods of handling bodily functions. Some use paddle floats .
If one likes sponsons and finds them useful then that is good. My concern
has always been that most people do not understand or are unaware of the
downside of things. I know of no rescue device or technique that is fool
proof or 100% reliable or does not have some aspect that will turn off at
least one paddler.
I have attended SNAME (Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers)
symposia where people with more letters behind their names than I have in
mine argue over these things. :-)
Cheers
John Winters
Redwing Designs
Specialists in Human Powered Watercraft
http://home.ican.net/~735769/