Inwale "Scuppers"

[Woodchuck]

It seems to me that the origin of "scuppers" came from copying the look of canoes made with vertical ribs. After installing the inwales and outwales, you were automatically left with "scuppers" and with the newer bead and cove strippers, the process or look has just been continued.. My question is: Do you really need them? Most of the traditional strippers have them but I am seeing several new designs without them at all. I have been told that they are required for water drainage and to a lesser extent, weight but the water issue depends on how you store the canoe. How about some pro's and con's for the use of scuppers. I am leaning towards just not putting them in at all on my Nomad 17'...

[Oshan OkaPini]

Mr. Chuck,

The addition of scuppering to the canoe's inwales are not necessary, other than for the sake of some convenience. The drainage capability isn't necessarily confined to the way it has been stored. I manage to get some water in mine just about every time I take it out. Waves, dripping paddles, rain, wet feet, anchor, etc. all transfer some into the canoe. When you flip the canoe to put it back on your vehicle, water will get out of the canoe regardless of the presence of scuppering. They do, however, allow the water to run out before it reaches the middle of the canoe, where you are.

On the other hand, having scuppers does provide convenient tie down points for packs and equipment for trips and fish stringers and anchors for local fishing excursions.

Norman

[Patricks Dad]

I'm a scupper fan for a couple reasons but agree that it is a personal preference. Not putting them in isn't a crime against humanity.

When you flip the canoe to put it back on your vehicle, water will get out of the canoe regardless of the presence of scuppering.

One concern that I can resonate with is that when you flip the canoe over, water that isn't "vented" out via scuppers can follow the gunwale down to the decks and pool there on top of the (underside of the) deck. If it doesn't evaporate from there and there are any defects in the seal from epoxy and varnish, water could enter the wood and cause damage in the strip-stem-deck joint area.

One approach I've heard of to address this is a small (1/8") hole just below the gunwale through the stems just at the surface of the underside of the deck to allow a path for water pooled on the deck to exit the canoe. This could compensate for the absence of scuppers.

The tie-down opportunities with scuppers is the other plus that I see.

But cutting them, sanding them, coating them is certainly extra work.

[Woodchuck]

The reason for my question is because I am going to built a "ama" outrigger to mount on my canoe and attaching the "aka's" attachment arms to the canoe presents a problem because of the localized forces. I was thinking that without the scuppers and epoxying the gunnels, I could spread the load out over a longer surface length and have more support. OK, guys, chew on this one awhile...

[mtpocket]

Why not just eliminate scuppers in the area of the mounting?

[Dave]

I've built 2 canoes. One with scuppers and one without. When I get home from an outing I like to clean them inside and out using a garden hose with the canoes on the lawn in the back yard. Flipped over to drain the one with scuppers drains and dries and the other one doesn't. I like the "looks" of both ways but I'll always use scuppers from now on.
Dave

[Rick]

I built my Huron without scuppers, because I like the look of thin inwales and outwales, and scuppering a thin inwale probably wouldn't have resulted in enough strength and durability in the structure. Lightness is another thing, but the removal of wood when routing out scuppers probably gets one to the same place.

The way to allow water to drain out with unscuppered inwales is to bevel their undersides so that water won't be channelled into the ends - when I flip over the Huron on a portage, water drips off the sides just like in a traditional ribbed hull. Patrick's point on drilling holes to allow any water accumulating under the decks to run out is a good one - I made my holes through the decks against the stem, about 3/8" diameter, although the bevelled inwales don't channel much water into that area.

The design of the hull also helps one decide whether to go with unscuppered inwales or not. Tumblehome creates a more rigid structure and thin, light gunnels are more acceptable than in a hull with flared sides. The newer designs also include features like shouldered tumblehome and "knuckle"... both of these are intended to increase structural hull rigidity and reduce the need for massive, heavy gunnels.

Not sure if this helps you with the outrigger decision... I might be building an Osprey next time round and scuppered inwales might be the right choice for that hull... good luck!

[davidb54321]

Woodchuck,

I am about to put the inwales in my Prospector. After much thought on this subject, I plan to use a solid inwale and rout a couple slots with a core box bit on either side of the center thwart. This will allow drainage and a place to tie things in when needed.