what if...

[Sir Adam]

Reading the posts about the lack of new C1 designs got me thinking...

what if...

there was a new C1 design...
in glass....
9' or shorter....
wide by all but race standards (e.g. stable)....

and...

it was a squirt boat...
low volume ends...slicy, yet fluid...

with...

a big cockpit like the Sith, or wheelboy, so it was comfy....


would there be any interest?

[PAC]

Like you even need to ask..... YES!

[Sir Adam]

I know there are certain, shall we saw, warped, individuals who share my obsession with trying to actually squirt / mystery a CBoat (PAC, MikeW, NZMatt and LEW namely ), and I KNOW in the past there have been others (anyone else remember Huge Munro?)

Is there anyone else out there, who might be interested, should a C1 squirt boat come in to existance that was, shall we say, more "user friendly" than the Maven?

The Maven will be teaching me things for years I'm sure...but after paddling it, and the Sith the same weekend...I got to thinking...would other folks be more inclined to try and possibly buy a C1 squirt boat if it was relatively easy to paddle (e.g. stable), and comfortable....

Craig? Alden? Jay? others?

Let me know what you think....

[Mike W.]

A squirt boat designed for warped, larger gentlemen!?! I'll take one! Red. With BUNCHES of metal-flake

I liked the volume of LEW's Maven. It's just too narrow for my skills.

ps - Next week looks promising for exploration of a potential mystery spot

[Alden]

Adam,
I'm definitely interested.
Alden

[Craig Smerda]

Frankly I think we would all like to paddle nice lightweight glass boats all the time but for the majority of us it just isn't practical. Personally speaking the way I abuse boats I would spend more time repairing one than paddling it. In my opinion rotomolding is the best option for a boat people will buy... and it can be done correctly and not be a "tank".

I've thought about a similar idea from time to time. One idea I've had is getting a bunch of c-boaters together to design a C-1, shape it, prototype it, and get a mold made and have it rotomolded for us. Think of it as a C-boat Co-op.

The two big problems with that idea are; (1) Getting enough people together that would come to an agreement in one boat in one size and shape that they all wanted. (2) Cost... frankly it would take about $25K or more to have the mold made... but once it was done the cost to have the boats molded would not be that expensive... the downside... anyone who wanted in on the project would have to cough up about a grand to help cover the costs of the mold. Another alternative would be to have the mold made in fiberglass which is how most prototype boats are molded... I believe the Dagger Aftershock & Quake where made in fiberglass molds... food for thought. The drawbacks are that the mold doesn't make nice "shiny" boats and the mold lifespan is not even close to that of aluminum... the upside is the huGE cost savings.

Nice idea in theory but I can't see it happening.

Here's another thought... is Drakkar done?... dead? I know I suggested once in the past that if people wanted to get a "Fat-Boy" that if they could work with Drakkar and help cover the costs of getting the mold made by pre-ordering that might help expidite the financial issues that may be holding the boat up... but who knows.

I'll be checking back on this post.

[sbroam]

I still think the future is in materials that will affect, among many other things, the cost and complexity of production. Think "carbon nano-tubes". You nano-technologists get cracking! I want my 5 pound, polymorphic C-boat and I want it next week!

[RodeoClown]

It would definitely be something I'd like to at least try. In my mind, having paddled a bunch of squirtboats (all K-1 though) the ideal length to balance mystery performance and throwdownability is about 8.5-8.75 feet. Wide would certainly be nice for stability, but remember "width is volume," and also that width in the ends adversely effects long axis rotations, so I'm thinking you'd want it to narrow down pretty quickly. My ideal c-1 squirtboat would have basically no rocker along the seam line in the stern, and some rocker in the bow, so that you can actually paddle it forward. The stern would be symmetric top to bottom (like Jim S's new KOR and Ninja), fairly flat, leading into nice rounded edges. It would probably look a lot like a surfboard with a cockpit.

Or why not forgo the cockpit, and make a kneel-on-top? (would that be an OC-1 squirtboat?) Could resolve some of the comfort issues. Just a wild and crazy idea. I've been full of those lately.

maybe I'll put that on my boat design schedule for after I finish the Maelstrom and the other squirtboat I've got floating around in my mind...

[the great gonzo]

Reading the posts about the lack of new C1 designs got me thinking...

what if...

there was a new C1 design...
in glass....
9' or shorter....
wide by all but race standards (e.g. stable)....

and...

it was a squirt boat...
low volume ends...slicy, yet fluid...

with...

a big cockpit like the Sith, or wheelboy, so it was comfy....


would there be any interest?

Sir Adam,

Sign me up for one !!!

martin a.k.a. the great gonzo!

[Mike W.]

The stern would be symmetric top to bottom

Wouldn't that kill the wing effect? I'm thinking of how my Forplay, (w/ equal volume distribution on hull & deck) doesn't squirt smoothly. On the other hand, by Big EZ, Viper & Acrobat (all w/ more hull volume than deck volume) squirt very smoothly.

[michielv]

I've thought about a similar idea from time to time. One idea I've had is getting a bunch of c-boaters together to design a C-1, shape it, prototype it, and get a mold made and have it rotomolded for us. Think of it as a C-boat Co-op.

Another option might be to get together with a few paddlers, design and prototype a C-1 in glass and when it's done get in touch with a company (perhaps even a small company, they might be more interested than the larger ones) and see if they would be willing to help out with the mold and production.

Especially if there would be a minimum sale to cover the costs of the mold etc. smaller companies might be interested.

Otherwise I'd say go for the glass mold option and get some nice pre-preproduction boats. If it works out you can always decide to get an expensive aluminium mold. At least you have a few testboats available to make sure the investment in an aluminium mold is worthwhile.

[RodeoClown]

Wouldn't that kill the wing effect? I'm thinking of how my Forplay, (w/ equal volume distribution on hull & deck) doesn't squirt smoothly. On the other hand, by Big EZ, Viper & Acrobat (all w/ more hull volume than deck volume) squirt very smoothly.

The current thinking seems to be moving away from the downdrafting "wing" effect, and more toward a more neutral "wing"- not so much downdrafting but still getting good flow across it. You can adjust the downdrafting with the angle of boat. you can see what Jim S has to day about it: http://www.angstkayak.com/messageboard/ ... 12654.html

[Sir Adam]

Interesting...

I've sort of thought that for years, but realize I know far less about mystery moves than most squirtists of all strips out there.

To me, whether or not you can sink depends on deck shape and overall volume...and how long you stay down there, especially if your boat DOES want to float at all, is less dependent on the wing effect than on having a boat that can spin easily, and that is relatively easy to stay balanced.

Take a boat like the Meltdown (note: I've never paddled one, just talked to folks that have) - with the volume the boat has, you wouldn't think it would go down...BUT, because of the concave deck you can load the bow and or stern up, and it sinks (or bow or stern squirts, at paddler weights you'd be surprised at).

The Acrobat is actually a fairly neutral boat in this regard - and I suspect that's why folks have had teh best luck with it so far. Concavities in the deck, and it would sink even easier....

[RodeoClown]

I think it's more overall volume and edge shape- which seems to control how easily the boat spins underwater and slices through. I've got an Angst (very hard edges and flat hull on the stern), with a fairly traditional squirt deck- and I can really feel the resistance of it, even at a very low chop. I think you actually have a convex deck and it'll sink if you've got good edges and can chop it small enough. Of course, a convex deck will tend to "shed" water and resurface better. I'm not sure if there's much of a difference between a flat and concave deck...

The big ADVANTAGE a C-squirt would have is that you could pretty much cut it as small as you want, and have a much higher "tool area" to "float area" ratio- which is one of Jim's theories that seems to be working well in his boats.

[ezwater]

Smerda never could dodge rocks !