Could anyone comment on the performance impact (benefits/detriments/characteristics) of low secondary stability in an OC1 slalom canoe.
Thank you
Delbert Adams
Performance impact of secondary stability in an OC1
Moderators: kenneth, sbroam, TheKrikkitWars, Mike W., Sir Adam, KNeal, PAC, adamin
-
Louie
It is surprising what one can get used to. I have seen people race effectively in boats that the rest of us couldn't use for a Sunday paddle. An OC-1 boat needs to be narrow for good forward paddling, so flaring the sides way out for "final" secondary stability is not possible. If you then design the sides to give the feeling of a definite save-your-butt angle for secondary stability, there may be two problems. One, if you go beyond that point, you're gone, with relative abrubtness. Two, you'll have a chine that may make the boat quite catchy or edgy with side currents.
But as I said, skilled racers seem to be able to perform predictably with some strange combinations.
But as I said, skilled racers seem to be able to perform predictably with some strange combinations.
I've raced with three differently radical designs: the Rattler (a Cudamax with sides), the Reaktor (Stability? We don't need no stinkin' stability!) and my current boat, the Cobra (narrow, railed and fast). Frankly, the easiest boat to paddle was the Reaktor, but you could never depend on its native stability. In racing that's not a factor because the paddle is always stabilizing the boat, and the round bottom was the least effected by squirrelly water. I might have to brace a little, but the hull was never "grabbed".
Most of the newer racing boats are built on a compromise design, somewhere between the Rattler and the Reaktor, and I find them very easy to paddle. Less edgy than the Rattler or my Cobra, and much more stable than the Reaktor.
Most of the newer racing boats are built on a compromise design, somewhere between the Rattler and the Reaktor, and I find them very easy to paddle. Less edgy than the Rattler or my Cobra, and much more stable than the Reaktor.
Bob P
Stability?
Low stability compared to what? My Spark is pretty stable, and I have gotten away with some funky moves in it (even with me being more than 190 pounds). The boat is quick to move from side-to-side, but it is consistent in that response, and stable when over on those sides. It is MUCH more stable when moving forward.
My other race boat is a Prowler, and at 15' that is VERY stable- I would run any big water in that!
My other race boat is a Prowler, and at 15' that is VERY stable- I would run any big water in that!
Jim
Re: Performance impact of secondary stability in an OC1
not really sure what you're asking...dadams wrote:Could anyone comment on the performance impact (benefits/detriments/characteristics) of low secondary stability in an OC1 slalom canoe.
I can only guess you might find 'lower' secondary stability, as a result of a possible narrower hull. This is only a generalized statement, but as such so is the question. In order to field the question(s), a bit of refinement is required. As a 'OC1 slalom canoe' covers the full spectrum of what's available, from little short ones - to the more extended models (from as short as possible, to as long as you could get through a gate).
The performance impact (benefits/detriments/characteristics).... would be more speed and increased maneuverability. And even this response is most greatly generalized, as there are volume-upon-volume written on the subject of design.
Thank you Louie, EZ Water, Bob P. Jim and Phil Canoe, for sharing your experience and accumulated knowledge. I am a bit smarter now than I was a week ago; thanks to you. I have a long way to go and I will get there.
You have made comments that could use clarification andI have noted these below.
All the best
Delbert Adams
Louie - Yes but it would be total wrong and more than likely irrelevant. If Chad comes over he could comment.
(Not sure where you are going – please elaborate.)
EZ Water – An OC-1 (Slalom ?- DA) boat needs to be narrow for good forward paddling, so flaring the sides way out for "final" secondary stability is not possible.
If you then design the sides to give the feeling of a definite save-your-butt angle for secondary stability, there may be two problems with save your butt angle:
One, if you go beyond that point, you're gone, with relative abruptness.
(Sharp threshold between primary and secondary and/or band of primary stability ?)
Two, you'll have a chine that may make the boat quite catchy or edgy with side currents.
(Good point – watch those boil lines?)
But as I said, skilled racers seem to be able to perform predictably with some strange combinations.
(Key point- skilled racers – not sure what you mean by combinations.)
Bob P - I've raced with three differently radical designs: the Rattler (a Cudamax with sides), the Reaktor (Stability? We don't need no stinkin' stability!) and my current boat, the Cobra (narrow, railed and fast). Frankly, the easiest boat to paddle was the Reaktor, but you could never depend on its native stability.
(Native stability comes from solid bracing? Can you suggest drills to reinforce the link between the brace and knees?)
In racing that's not a factor because the paddle is always stabilizing the boat, and the round bottom was the least effected by squirrelly water.
(I like that – Squirrely water – it defies definition but you know what it means.)
I might have to brace a little, but the hull was never "grabbed".
(No chine to catch? The Reacktor has a round bottom which does not be caught be goofy boils and boil lines?)
Most of the newer racing boats are built on a compromise design, somewhere between the Rattler (what is a Rattler?) and the Reaktor, and I find them very easy to paddle.
(Easy to the point you can day dream while paddling?)
Less edgy than the Rattler or my Cobra, and much more stable than the Reaktor.
Jim - Low stability compared to what?
(Good question – To what?
What comes to mind is different frame of reference( different boats, skills, rivers, lines on those rivers) – hmmm…. let’s use a 17’ Grumman as the baseline and as we move forward in the discussion pick more slalom friendly boats from there.)
My Spark is pretty stable, and I have gotten away with some funky moves in it (even with me being more than 190 pounds).
(Please describe a funky move.)
The boat is quick to move from side-to-side, but it is consistent in that response, and stable when over on those sides.
(It sounds like the Spark was designed to be responsive and predictable when navigating gates and when on its side has a stable carve when on that side. Is my understanding correct?)
It is MUCH more stable when moving forward.
(Stability of the carve is dependent on forward velocity?)
My other race boat is a Prowler, and at 15' that is VERY stable- I would run any big water in that!
(Does this mean your Spark is not as effective in big water?)
Phil Canoe - not really sure what you're asking...
(My question was general and it has been answered. The answers from you and others has prompted new questions.)
I can only guess you might find 'lower' secondary stability, as a result of a possible narrower hull.
(I am listening, not sure where you are going…….. please elaborate.)
This is only a generalized statement, but as such so is the question. In order to field the question(s), a bit of refinement is required.
As a 'OC1 slalom canoe' covers the full spectrum of what's available, from little short ones - to the more extended models (from as short as possible, to as long as you could get through a gate).
(Let’s start by calling a slalom canoe as anything produced by Millbrook.
This company seems to have nailed and redefined the segment.)
The performance impact would be more speed and increased maneuverability.
(I am sure you are making a point here. It escapes my limitations.)
And even this response is most greatly generalized, as there are volume-upon-volume written on the subject of design.
(Thanks for your responses.)
You have made comments that could use clarification andI have noted these below.
All the best
Delbert Adams
Louie - Yes but it would be total wrong and more than likely irrelevant. If Chad comes over he could comment.
(Not sure where you are going – please elaborate.)
EZ Water – An OC-1 (Slalom ?- DA) boat needs to be narrow for good forward paddling, so flaring the sides way out for "final" secondary stability is not possible.
If you then design the sides to give the feeling of a definite save-your-butt angle for secondary stability, there may be two problems with save your butt angle:
One, if you go beyond that point, you're gone, with relative abruptness.
(Sharp threshold between primary and secondary and/or band of primary stability ?)
Two, you'll have a chine that may make the boat quite catchy or edgy with side currents.
(Good point – watch those boil lines?)
But as I said, skilled racers seem to be able to perform predictably with some strange combinations.
(Key point- skilled racers – not sure what you mean by combinations.)
Bob P - I've raced with three differently radical designs: the Rattler (a Cudamax with sides), the Reaktor (Stability? We don't need no stinkin' stability!) and my current boat, the Cobra (narrow, railed and fast). Frankly, the easiest boat to paddle was the Reaktor, but you could never depend on its native stability.
(Native stability comes from solid bracing? Can you suggest drills to reinforce the link between the brace and knees?)
In racing that's not a factor because the paddle is always stabilizing the boat, and the round bottom was the least effected by squirrelly water.
(I like that – Squirrely water – it defies definition but you know what it means.)
I might have to brace a little, but the hull was never "grabbed".
(No chine to catch? The Reacktor has a round bottom which does not be caught be goofy boils and boil lines?)
Most of the newer racing boats are built on a compromise design, somewhere between the Rattler (what is a Rattler?) and the Reaktor, and I find them very easy to paddle.
(Easy to the point you can day dream while paddling?)
Less edgy than the Rattler or my Cobra, and much more stable than the Reaktor.
Jim - Low stability compared to what?
(Good question – To what?
What comes to mind is different frame of reference( different boats, skills, rivers, lines on those rivers) – hmmm…. let’s use a 17’ Grumman as the baseline and as we move forward in the discussion pick more slalom friendly boats from there.)
My Spark is pretty stable, and I have gotten away with some funky moves in it (even with me being more than 190 pounds).
(Please describe a funky move.)
The boat is quick to move from side-to-side, but it is consistent in that response, and stable when over on those sides.
(It sounds like the Spark was designed to be responsive and predictable when navigating gates and when on its side has a stable carve when on that side. Is my understanding correct?)
It is MUCH more stable when moving forward.
(Stability of the carve is dependent on forward velocity?)
My other race boat is a Prowler, and at 15' that is VERY stable- I would run any big water in that!
(Does this mean your Spark is not as effective in big water?)
Phil Canoe - not really sure what you're asking...
(My question was general and it has been answered. The answers from you and others has prompted new questions.)
I can only guess you might find 'lower' secondary stability, as a result of a possible narrower hull.
(I am listening, not sure where you are going…….. please elaborate.)
This is only a generalized statement, but as such so is the question. In order to field the question(s), a bit of refinement is required.
As a 'OC1 slalom canoe' covers the full spectrum of what's available, from little short ones - to the more extended models (from as short as possible, to as long as you could get through a gate).
(Let’s start by calling a slalom canoe as anything produced by Millbrook.
This company seems to have nailed and redefined the segment.)
The performance impact would be more speed and increased maneuverability.
(I am sure you are making a point here. It escapes my limitations.)
And even this response is most greatly generalized, as there are volume-upon-volume written on the subject of design.
(Thanks for your responses.)
T'was an attempt at being diplomatic, I was saying ....dadams wrote:....a bunch....
Phil Canoe - not really sure what you're asking...
(My question was general and it has been answered. The answers from you and others has prompted new questions.)
I can only guess you might find 'lower' secondary stability, as a result of a possible narrower hull.
(I am listening, not sure where you are going…….. please elaborate.)
This is only a generalized statement, but as such so is the question. In order to field the question(s), a bit of refinement is required.
As a 'OC1 slalom canoe' covers the full spectrum of what's available, from little short ones - to the more extended models (from as short as possible, to as long as you could get through a gate).
(Let’s start by calling a slalom canoe as anything produced by Millbrook.
This company seems to have nailed and redefined the segment.)
The performance impact would be more speed and increased maneuverability.
(I am sure you are making a point here. It escapes my limitations.)
And even this response is most greatly generalized, as there are volume-upon-volume written on the subject of design.
(Thanks for your responses.)
Instead of saying, not all slalom boats suffer from 'lower' secondary stability....that some do and some do not. Much the same as other non-slalom canoes. As previously stated some slalom canoes are extremely stable, in both secondary and primary stability."I can only guess you might find 'lower' secondary stability, as a result of a possible narrower hull. "
And yes you may say,
,...but that's only a partial truth, as Millbrook canoes are not the only slalom boats being raced, and also because John Kaz does quite a good job building more than just slalom canoes."Let’s start by calling a slalom canoe as anything produced by Millbrook."
As to the point I was making by saying, "The performance impact would be more speed and increased maneuverability. " It was a direct response to what I perceived your question was. You asked, "Could anyone comment on the performance impact (benefits/detriments/characteristics) of low secondary stability in an OC1 slalom canoe." Well the performance impact is.....more speed and increased maneuverability... that is the impact of low secondary stability in an OC1 slalom canoe (your wording). Which in essence is why would it be a Slalom Canoe, because it's fast and nimble.
You wrote all slalom canoes have low secondary stability (from 1st line of this thread), well the major common characteristic (to most) is they are generally narrower. Other than let's say weight, durability, and enjoyment. And generally the less width, the less stability (initial or secondary). The verbiage referring to, volume-upon-volume on the subject of design. Was to let you know, in order to completely answer your question, it would take considerable time and effort for someone at the keyboard... and if interested you may read up on boat design.
And your new questions....?