I've been waiting for awhile to see more plans like this on the market. I think it's a good move to get one in this size on the market for Bear Mnt. I think it will be pretty popular.
First, some comments that come to mind:
1. I'm not fond of the stern stem shape. I'd like to actually see both of the stems with a little more rounding to them. Mostly for ascetically reasons, but with a "C" stroke a little looser tracking is fine in solo boats, because the "C" stroke is so effective at keeping a canoe going straight. Plus, with the shoulder, my guess is that a little extra curve in the stems with look very flowing. At least, make the stern stem a little less vertical.
2. It seems like there is a little too much volume in the ends from looking at the plan view. It definitely looks more like a Canadian solo vs. a U.S. solo. Not that this is bad, but I'd prefer it a little narrower in the ends.
3. I've stripped tumblehome like that before on a Carrying Place Canoe Soul Mate and it wasn't that fun. It took a ton of force and two people at points. I hope you can address this issue.
4. Please, don't make it any deeper. With 8.5" of Freeboard at 260 pounds, it should be a good load carrier. As, Cliff Jacobson says, "Solo canoes are different." You can get by pretty effectively with as little as 6" of freeboard and still be comfortable in fast moving rough water.
5. My guess is that the stability is fine. I'd personally like a less stable boat if it is more efficient. BTW, I'd guess that a Bell Magic is in the high 80s or lower 90s.
6. I wonder if you could smooth the thumblehome chine line into the hull a little further back, maybe by a foot and add a little more flare up front? I just might not be seeing this in the pictures you posted. Maybe it's there? I think smoothing the chine further back will help make the canoe look a little more elegant and sexy.
7. I'm a little concerned about the tracking. With the plumb stems, light rocker, and the shallow V hull, I'm concerned that tracking will be too stiff. Personally, I'd like to see this on par with the Bell Merlin II for tracking. A good tracker, but one that also can be easily turned.
Second, a couple of questions:
1. Is it possible to post a 3/4 view or any 3D views from different angles?
2. What's the Cp, Cb, center of buoyancy, etc... Willing to share any more hydrostatics at this point?
3. What's the displacement with 6" and 7" of Freeboard?
4. Would you care to post KAPER resistance numbers for 2,3,4,4.5,5, and 6 Knots at 250 pounds?
5. How do you see this being paddled; Canadian style, hit and switch, classic solo, or is it designed to accommodate multiple styles of paddling?
Overall, it's looking good, and I'm happy that you're working on this.
Cheers,
Bryan
New Design - Freedom Solo
-
Bryan Hansel
- Posts: 678
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 6:36 pm
- Location: Grand Marais, MN
- Contact:
Nice design
It looks like it should be a very pleasant handling boat. I like the shouldered tumblehome. I've paddled some of John Winter's and Dave Yost's designs that use it, as well as some other designs that use a rounded tumblehome. I like the way the shouldered tumblehome firms things up when the boat is heeled. I also like the way the hull is flared above the waterline.
Am I correct in assuming that it is designed to be quite seaworthy? It looks that way from the illustrations, but it's always nice to know what the designer has to say. Seaworthiness is always high on my list of priorities as I tend to paddle solo and often paddle when it is a bit rougher than most folks care for.
I guess you get all sorts of preferences regarding the balance between tracking and maneuverability. I prefer a relatively strong tracking boat that turns reasonably well when heeled a bit. This design looks like it should do that.
I like the idea of being able to build it in a couple of different lengths. I'm around 220 and, although I'm a relatively light packer, I occasionally take trips where I have to carry several days worth of water. I'm not sure the 15' version would be quite big enough, but the longer version would probably do the trick.
Am I correct in assuming that it is designed to be quite seaworthy? It looks that way from the illustrations, but it's always nice to know what the designer has to say. Seaworthiness is always high on my list of priorities as I tend to paddle solo and often paddle when it is a bit rougher than most folks care for.
I guess you get all sorts of preferences regarding the balance between tracking and maneuverability. I prefer a relatively strong tracking boat that turns reasonably well when heeled a bit. This design looks like it should do that.
I like the idea of being able to build it in a couple of different lengths. I'm around 220 and, although I'm a relatively light packer, I occasionally take trips where I have to carry several days worth of water. I'm not sure the 15' version would be quite big enough, but the longer version would probably do the trick.
Dave
-
Steve Killing
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 3:16 pm
- Location: Midland, Ontario, Canada
Freedom 15-16 Getting Closer
A few more specs on the boat in response to discussion and questions:
The Prismatic Coefficient is 0.560 - a value I find comfortable for general canoeing. It gives nice speed potential without hurting the paddling ability for “not-so-strong” paddlers. If the Prismatic coefficient is reasonable, and the longitudinal center of buoyancy is not too far back (this one is 54% of the waterline aft), then the fullness in the ends is under control. Narrower ends would mean a lower prismatic and I don’t think we want to be any lower. Perhaps what you are seeing is the sheerline fullness in planview which on this boat doesn’t relate much to the hull that is in the water.
As for the stem shapes, well, that indeed is matter of taste and we won’t be able to create the aesthetics by committee. So sorry about this one, you’ll have to live with my sense of aesthetics and I like the look of those stems!
The maneuverability is always a trade off. A short canoe like this one will tend to turn more easily so I think for most people, they need the tracking and will make it turn with lean. That being said, I might add more rocker to the bow and leave the stern the same.
The suggestion to fair out the tumblehome line earlier as it goes forward is a good one and I will see how it works out. That would mean there is no hint of tumblehome in the forward 12” or so, and I like that. The force required to twist the planks in the tumblehome area is related to how much length is given for the twist to occur. If you have a long distance it is not a problem, but over a short span (as on the “ton-of-force” boat mentioned) it can be difficult. So that leads me to keep it fairly long.
The displacement with 6” of freeboard is not a figure I normally use, for it gives a bit of a false impression of the load capacity. But for what it’s worth this boat has a 6” fdb capacity of 535 lbs. But you won’t enjoy paddling it with that load.
For tripping, I see paddlers sitting in the seat, and paddling either hit and switch or J-stroke. Once camp is setup a nice evening paddle kneeling heeled over with a J-stroke or your C-stroke would be fun. I think you could paddle it in many different ways.
We’ll wrap up this discussion on Saturday, April 8 and then I’ll get to work on the drawings, so all you potential paddlers and builders should get your comments in now. Many thanks for your input.
Regards,
Steve
The Prismatic Coefficient is 0.560 - a value I find comfortable for general canoeing. It gives nice speed potential without hurting the paddling ability for “not-so-strong” paddlers. If the Prismatic coefficient is reasonable, and the longitudinal center of buoyancy is not too far back (this one is 54% of the waterline aft), then the fullness in the ends is under control. Narrower ends would mean a lower prismatic and I don’t think we want to be any lower. Perhaps what you are seeing is the sheerline fullness in planview which on this boat doesn’t relate much to the hull that is in the water.
As for the stem shapes, well, that indeed is matter of taste and we won’t be able to create the aesthetics by committee. So sorry about this one, you’ll have to live with my sense of aesthetics and I like the look of those stems!
The maneuverability is always a trade off. A short canoe like this one will tend to turn more easily so I think for most people, they need the tracking and will make it turn with lean. That being said, I might add more rocker to the bow and leave the stern the same.
The suggestion to fair out the tumblehome line earlier as it goes forward is a good one and I will see how it works out. That would mean there is no hint of tumblehome in the forward 12” or so, and I like that. The force required to twist the planks in the tumblehome area is related to how much length is given for the twist to occur. If you have a long distance it is not a problem, but over a short span (as on the “ton-of-force” boat mentioned) it can be difficult. So that leads me to keep it fairly long.
The displacement with 6” of freeboard is not a figure I normally use, for it gives a bit of a false impression of the load capacity. But for what it’s worth this boat has a 6” fdb capacity of 535 lbs. But you won’t enjoy paddling it with that load.
For tripping, I see paddlers sitting in the seat, and paddling either hit and switch or J-stroke. Once camp is setup a nice evening paddle kneeling heeled over with a J-stroke or your C-stroke would be fun. I think you could paddle it in many different ways.
We’ll wrap up this discussion on Saturday, April 8 and then I’ll get to work on the drawings, so all you potential paddlers and builders should get your comments in now. Many thanks for your input.
Regards,
Steve
-
Bryan Hansel
- Posts: 678
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 6:36 pm
- Location: Grand Marais, MN
- Contact:
Thanks for the reply. I might have been seeing the sheerline fullness in the plan view. I really like the look of 3/4 view posted. Very flowing, very elegant. The stem looks pretty good in this view.
I like the idea of a little more rocker up front while leaving the stern the same, and I hope that the tumblehome idea works out.
Understood about the 6" of freeboard. The reason I was asking for the other freeboard was that it might alleviate some of the concern that people had about the boat being too small for a 200 pound person when tripping. I'm 200, carry about 50 pounds at most for 10 day trips, and I'd guess the boat will build at around 40 pounds at the most. So, 290 to 300 we're still at around 8 to 7.5" of freeboard? Plenty for the start of a trip, and probably close to the design capacity at the end of the trip. And when the girlfriend wants to use the canoe it'll be perfect for her. Just how I like 'em. Perfect.
I like the way you see the canoe as being used. Right up my alley. Now, I need to decide if I'm going to start a solo canoe that I've been wanting to build (Red River Elan) or wait for this one. I think I'm going to wait.
How long do you anticipate the drawings taking?
I like the idea of a little more rocker up front while leaving the stern the same, and I hope that the tumblehome idea works out.
Understood about the 6" of freeboard. The reason I was asking for the other freeboard was that it might alleviate some of the concern that people had about the boat being too small for a 200 pound person when tripping. I'm 200, carry about 50 pounds at most for 10 day trips, and I'd guess the boat will build at around 40 pounds at the most. So, 290 to 300 we're still at around 8 to 7.5" of freeboard? Plenty for the start of a trip, and probably close to the design capacity at the end of the trip. And when the girlfriend wants to use the canoe it'll be perfect for her. Just how I like 'em. Perfect.
I like the way you see the canoe as being used. Right up my alley. Now, I need to decide if I'm going to start a solo canoe that I've been wanting to build (Red River Elan) or wait for this one. I think I'm going to wait.
How long do you anticipate the drawings taking?
-
Steve Killing
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 3:16 pm
- Location: Midland, Ontario, Canada
Load Capacities
The optimum capacities we quote for the Bear Mountain boats will result in a paddling experience we know you will enjoy. That's not a very scientific explanation, but there is no precise maximum weight capacity for a boat. If you were to plot turning ability or seaworthiness or even happiness against weight-in-the-canoe it would be a nice bold line from lower to upper optimum load capacity and then get rather wide and fuzzy beyond that range. So much is dependant on the paddler’s comfort level.
So the goal will be to increase the capacity of the larger Solo boat so that the heavier paddlers will be happier. I'll give you some new numbers once I get into the redesign.
Regards,
Steve
So the goal will be to increase the capacity of the larger Solo boat so that the heavier paddlers will be happier. I'll give you some new numbers once I get into the redesign.
Regards,
Steve
stern shape
Iknow that you said that you couldn't please everybody with the profile, but I'd thought I'd try anyway. I would like the stern shape to better match the bow and not be so plumb. Two reasons.
!. I don't like the way it looks, but that is not important and
2. The bow has nice flare all the way out to the ends. There is lots of volume to give the bow bouyancy in big waves. I think the stern needs the same and the plumb stem limits that. I find this especially true; assymetrical hulls have a tendency to "plant" the bow in the trough of a wave and lead to broaching. To counter-act that tendency we move the weight back to keep the bow light and the stern firmly in the water. Having the stern height shorter and the plumb stem makes it more likely that a wave is going to spill in over the stern.
The short plumb stern is seen in racing hulls and this great as the gunnel width can be real narrow at the stern paddlers placement. Thats not necessary in the solo because the paddlers is in the middle.
I know that most folks never paddle in situations with big waves and wind, but many tripping/expedition type folks get out on some big water and conditions change fast. having that extra bounancy in the stern would be nice.
That said, if the stern stays the same in the final plan, I can pretty easily change that little aspect of it before I build. I love your designs and am very happy you are doing the two solos. I will probably build both of them.
!. I don't like the way it looks, but that is not important and
2. The bow has nice flare all the way out to the ends. There is lots of volume to give the bow bouyancy in big waves. I think the stern needs the same and the plumb stem limits that. I find this especially true; assymetrical hulls have a tendency to "plant" the bow in the trough of a wave and lead to broaching. To counter-act that tendency we move the weight back to keep the bow light and the stern firmly in the water. Having the stern height shorter and the plumb stem makes it more likely that a wave is going to spill in over the stern.
The short plumb stern is seen in racing hulls and this great as the gunnel width can be real narrow at the stern paddlers placement. Thats not necessary in the solo because the paddlers is in the middle.
I know that most folks never paddle in situations with big waves and wind, but many tripping/expedition type folks get out on some big water and conditions change fast. having that extra bounancy in the stern would be nice.
That said, if the stern stays the same in the final plan, I can pretty easily change that little aspect of it before I build. I love your designs and am very happy you are doing the two solos. I will probably build both of them.
Hi Steve
I know you're about to wrap up discussion on the new design.
Reflecting on canoes that I've sold and wished I had back!
One being a Hiawatha, from the earlier Canoecraft. Though I set this canoe up as a tandem, I really enjoyed paddling it solo!
Many times, thought to build this design, as a solo and adding tumblehome.
Will your design share anything with the original Hiawatha?
Thanks!
Jim
I know you're about to wrap up discussion on the new design.
Reflecting on canoes that I've sold and wished I had back!
One being a Hiawatha, from the earlier Canoecraft. Though I set this canoe up as a tandem, I really enjoyed paddling it solo!
Many times, thought to build this design, as a solo and adding tumblehome.
Will your design share anything with the original Hiawatha?
Thanks!
Jim
Keep your paddle wet and your seat dry!
-
Steve Killing
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 3:16 pm
- Location: Midland, Ontario, Canada
Freedom Solo Wrap-up
Well, today is our deadline for conclusion of this discussion. Many thanks for your input - the boat has been changed for the better (only in my mind, at the moment) because of your suggestions.
I will need two weeks to complete the design modifications and prepare the drawings, and then one week of editing, by myself and Ted Moores, before we make prints. That makes May 1, 2006 the date this Freedom Solo should be available from Bear Mountain. I will look forward to your feedback on both the construction and the paddling ability of the final product.
Many thanks to you all.
Regards,
Steve
I will need two weeks to complete the design modifications and prepare the drawings, and then one week of editing, by myself and Ted Moores, before we make prints. That makes May 1, 2006 the date this Freedom Solo should be available from Bear Mountain. I will look forward to your feedback on both the construction and the paddling ability of the final product.
Many thanks to you all.
Regards,
Steve