C-Forum

Hey Folks,

Shopping for a new river runner C1 conversion and one of my major concerns is finding a boat with the best USEABLE width. I have long legs and find it quite awkward to control the boat without decent spread. The Remix was high on the list but after comparing it next to a similar sized Burn and Diesel it looked like in those 2 you can get you're knees tighter into the chines.

Anyone care to comment on which of the commonly converted boats are the best in this respect? The Bliss-stick Tuna specs look promising and looks like it has a nice wide, flat hull but I'm a little apprehensive to buy an unproven boat.

What size Remix? I have a 79 and thick, if not long, legs and it is great - honestly one of my favorite boats ever. The only time knee spread feels close to inadequate is when i'm layered up in the dry suit.

A friend has a 59 or 69 as a C-1 and has never felt the love. Maybe that extra inch, inch and a half makes a difference, maybe it is just me...

Prijon Delirious. 70 cm wide!

Just joking.

I have a 79 Remix, and long legs (34-36" inseam). I've never felt a problem with knee spread. It's a fine boat for creeky runs and has better speed and holds a line better than my Nomad 8.5. A friend had a Diesel, but ended up switching to a Nomad and was much happier with it. I know several C-boaters who love the Burn.
If you're located near the Chattooga, you're welcome to try my Remix out.

Should have left my stats. I'm 6', 160 lbs. Long legs, short torso. 79 looks like it would be way too much boat for me.

I'm currently in my first C1, a Redline. Although I'm starting to feel pretty confident in it more width and volume would be greatly appreciated when the water levels pick back up. The only other C1 I've spent some time in is the Mystic. It's a very comfortable boat but I missed the speed and tracking of the Redline.

fez wrote:Prijon Delirious. . .

Yes !

Pierre LaPaddelle wrote:

fez wrote:Prijon Delirious. . .

Yes !

After your demonstration I wouldn't touch that boat with a 10' pole!

Based on the c-1s (not conversions) I've outfitted, some knee spread is good, but as much as the hull will allow may not be better.

Hulls aren't totally flat, and so as the knees go forward and outward, they will be raised above the level of the feet and ankles. In my case, too much knee spread makes my feet want to run into one another, but they don't get to because they're already running into the rear wall. And I find that knees-higher-than-feet can cause knee pain that my knee wedges can't correct.

On the stability and control issue, I'm probably taller from the hip to the shoulder bone than about anyone else on here, but with proper outfitting, I feel just fine even in my old Zealot slalom c-1. In fact, that's my most stable feeling boat, yet when you cut off its "ears" and measure the true width, it's scarcely over 26 inches.

I suggest that conversions have at least two potential problems. First, their bow rocker starts sooner that it might in a true c-1. Second, being kayaks, they may be arched more where the knees go than a "real" c-1 would be. In my opinion, a hull designed only as a river running c-1 is going to have less bow rocker, and less hull roundness in the bow, than most river running kayaks. So kayak designs are likely to be less stable to someone kneeling higher in the hull than a sitting butt boater.

Someone mentioned the Redline or Infrared, or whatever, and those were two nice kayak designs in terms of being more like a purpose-built c-1.

Given the possible limitations of a kayak hull, I think more might be gained by tighter, better controlled outfitting than by excessive knee spread. But if your knees can take the pain, go for it.

@GSG - too much boat? Ever paddle an open boat? You aren't going to try to sink the ends on even a small a Remix without tremendous effort (it ain't a play boat...) for my use of this boat, volume = being on top of the water = desirable. If you can try one, it's certainly worth some time...

@EZWater - I think the reason the 79 works better than the smaller versions is the geometry - my knees and feet are closer to being in the same plane, the wider boat means my knees aren't rising into the chines as much. And with the volume and rocker profile, I could adjust my seat to a good place without throwing off the trim as much.

sbroam wrote:@GSG - too much boat? Ever paddle an open boat? You aren't going to try to sink the ends on even a small a Remix without tremendous effort (it ain't a play boat...) for my use of this boat, volume = being on top of the water = desirable. If you can try one, it's certainly worth some time...

@EZWater - I think the reason the 79 works better than the smaller versions is the geometry - my knees and feet are closer to being in the same plane, the wider boat means my knees aren't rising into the chines as much. And with the volume and rocker profile, I could adjust my seat to a good place without throwing off the trim as much.

My other boats are a 14' Prospector and just recently, a decked L'edge. The "too much boat" comment is just what seems to be general consensus on cboats rather than my own experience.

ezwater wrote: Someone mentioned the Redline or Infrared, or whatever, and those were two nice kayak designs in terms of being more like a purpose-built c-1.

So you're saying I should quit bitching, keep paddling my Redline until it falls apart and then either get used to the limitations of conversions or find a proper c1?

For the record I comfortably paddled my 30" wide prospector with my knees jammed right into the chines. It was insanely stable to say the least.

Does a Prospector even have chines?

ezwater wrote: Does a Prospector even have chines?

Nope, apparently not. I thought chines simply referred to where the side and bottom of the hull converge but I guess it has to be fairly abrupt to be considered a chine... looks like I learned something today.

ezwater wrote: . . . I find that knees-higher-than-feet can cause knee pain that my knee wedges can't correct. . . Given the possible limitations of a kayak hull, I think more might be gained by tighter, better controlled outfitting than by excessive knee spread. But if your knees can take the pain, go for it.

I wouldn't argue 'yea' or 'nay' -- except to suggest that, as we're all built differently, our perceptions will vary.

An extreme example is the Fink, with it's narrow bottom, and wide flare in the chines. I tried 'knees narrowly spaced, but flat on the bottom,' THEN 'widely spaced, but shimmed up almost 2".' The knees-higher-than-feet didn't cause much discomfort, but I noticed a huge improvement in stability/control with the knees wider-but-higher.

But that's just MY perception. Your legs ain't mine.

So, Greg, my suggestion is to choose a hull based on characteristics other than outfitting, and then experiment with 'narrow-and-low' vs 'wide-and-high' to find out what works best for your legs AND control. And don't write off the Remix until you try it.

(And, by all means, try the Delirious. Pin-wheeling is fun!)

Rick

Pierre LaPaddelle wrote: So, Greg, my suggestion is to choose a hull based on characteristics other than outfitting, and then experiment with 'narrow-and-low' vs 'wide-and-high' to find out what works best for your legs AND control. And don't write off the Remix until you try it.

Fair enough, I'd certainly jump at the chance to take a Remix for a spin if the opportunity presented itself.

Give the new Mamba 8.6 creek boat a try. I think you'll find it's. a great fit. And it's 27.75 in wide.