Randy - I'm really interested in what you do for the seat. I know Jay Morrison built a combo seat/yoke. I think it would be great if you could build it so that the seat position also coincides with the balance point for portaging but still fits in the best spot for trimming the canoe while underway. Also, you'll want a low seat for the best centre of gravity but not too low as to hit your head on the bottom of the hull while portaging. I'm sure you've considered all those factors. Over on Solotripping.com there are always removable yoke and other seat/yoke discussions so you might find some good info there if you haven't been there already.
Moonman.
Uni-wale?
-
Patricks Dad
- Posts: 1476
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:11 pm
- Location: Warrenville, Illinois
I want to avoid the removable yoke approach. When I hit a portage, I want to be walking with all my gear in under a minute. A removable yoke would probably take more time than I would want to spend (but that indeed is a last resort).
I've pondered a couple approaches where the yoke is on the back of the seat (instead of under your knees) and flipped into a position that isn't necessarily the same as where the seat sits when you're paddling (I'm not sure how close the best seat position and the yoke balance point will fall yet). Also, a sliding seat may come into play here.... Lots to think about.
I've pondered a couple approaches where the yoke is on the back of the seat (instead of under your knees) and flipped into a position that isn't necessarily the same as where the seat sits when you're paddling (I'm not sure how close the best seat position and the yoke balance point will fall yet). Also, a sliding seat may come into play here.... Lots to think about.
-
Redbird Bernie
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2010 3:14 pm
- Location: Illinois, USA
Hey guys,
I considered using a uni-gunwale when building my Redbird but decided against it. My gunwale is a hefty 1" high by 1.5" wide piece of ash which would have been too stiff to bend in place. Instead, I rabbeted the gunwale for the thickness of the hull then ripped it into 2 pieces leaving me with a straight piece and an L which became the inwale. It wasn't easy to get in as I recall, but patience and a little heat and water helped shape it into place. Unfortunately the wood had to be splined to make the required length, and the spline made it especially difficult to set right.
If using a uni-gunwale, keep in mind that because the rabbet is cut in flat stock, the angle of cut can never perfectly match that of the hull at all points. This is due to the effect of bending and twisting of the wood on the rabbet as the gunwale follows the curve and recurve in the hull. It can still be done, but only if the hull is sanded to match the rabbet or the rabbet is made wider than the hull thickness and the void filled with epoxy.
Bernie
I considered using a uni-gunwale when building my Redbird but decided against it. My gunwale is a hefty 1" high by 1.5" wide piece of ash which would have been too stiff to bend in place. Instead, I rabbeted the gunwale for the thickness of the hull then ripped it into 2 pieces leaving me with a straight piece and an L which became the inwale. It wasn't easy to get in as I recall, but patience and a little heat and water helped shape it into place. Unfortunately the wood had to be splined to make the required length, and the spline made it especially difficult to set right.
If using a uni-gunwale, keep in mind that because the rabbet is cut in flat stock, the angle of cut can never perfectly match that of the hull at all points. This is due to the effect of bending and twisting of the wood on the rabbet as the gunwale follows the curve and recurve in the hull. It can still be done, but only if the hull is sanded to match the rabbet or the rabbet is made wider than the hull thickness and the void filled with epoxy.
Bernie
-
Patricks Dad
- Posts: 1476
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:11 pm
- Location: Warrenville, Illinois
Bernie, The Redbird would indeed be a bigger challenge for a Uni-wale with it's significant recurve and tumblehome (it was a challenge to bend inwales and outwales separately). I would not attempt such a thing with that design.
The Freedom Solo on the other hand has a much less challenging sheer line. There is almost no recurve and almost no twist in the sheer as it progresses from bow to stern. I think the primary challenge will come from minor variations in hull thickness due to sanding of the hull and glassing it (once I glass the inside and sand the sheer line clean, I'll know if this is a concern). That variation will have to be accommodated by a slightly wider channel and filling with thickened epoxy (with moving the variation to one side where possible).
The Freedom Solo on the other hand has a much less challenging sheer line. There is almost no recurve and almost no twist in the sheer as it progresses from bow to stern. I think the primary challenge will come from minor variations in hull thickness due to sanding of the hull and glassing it (once I glass the inside and sand the sheer line clean, I'll know if this is a concern). That variation will have to be accommodated by a slightly wider channel and filling with thickened epoxy (with moving the variation to one side where possible).
-
Bryan Hansel
- Posts: 678
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 6:36 pm
- Location: Grand Marais, MN
- Contact:
-
BearLeeAlive
- Posts: 196
- Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:00 pm
I am following this thread with great interest.
On my Kite, I am now contemplating doing a one piece gunwale with cherry. The shear hull width will be 27", and I am stretching it out to 15'-6" long. This canoe has a shallow curve to the gunwales, so I don't think it would be too tough to bend.
I was thinking of making it about 1 1/16"W , 3/4"H, with a 5/16"W(depending on how thick the laminated hull ends up being) x 1/2"D dado to fit the hull into. This would make the inwale and outwale 3/8"W.
My only concern is the twist it would try to make due to the dado. I imagine if I just kept feeding int onto the hull as I went around, this may not be too big of an issue.
On my Kite, I am now contemplating doing a one piece gunwale with cherry. The shear hull width will be 27", and I am stretching it out to 15'-6" long. This canoe has a shallow curve to the gunwales, so I don't think it would be too tough to bend.
I was thinking of making it about 1 1/16"W , 3/4"H, with a 5/16"W(depending on how thick the laminated hull ends up being) x 1/2"D dado to fit the hull into. This would make the inwale and outwale 3/8"W.
My only concern is the twist it would try to make due to the dado. I imagine if I just kept feeding int onto the hull as I went around, this may not be too big of an issue.
-JIM-
My Freedom 17 employed some unconventional materials (for a cedar strip canoe) in an attempt to get the weight down to within ultra-light composite range:
The uni-wale was constructed of Core-Cell foam sheathed with carbon fiber sleeves and epoxy. A kerf was cut on the underside to accept the top edge of the sheer. Each gunwale came to 1.5 lbs. They were attached with aluminum truck box rivets from the inside, and 3M marine adhesive 4200 near the stems. All other trim--decks, cleats, seat sub-structure, yoke--were also made from Core-Cell/CF and vacuum-bagged:
It's been on 3 week-long trips to Killarney P.P. and has held up fine so far.
The uni-wale was constructed of Core-Cell foam sheathed with carbon fiber sleeves and epoxy. A kerf was cut on the underside to accept the top edge of the sheer. Each gunwale came to 1.5 lbs. They were attached with aluminum truck box rivets from the inside, and 3M marine adhesive 4200 near the stems. All other trim--decks, cleats, seat sub-structure, yoke--were also made from Core-Cell/CF and vacuum-bagged:
It's been on 3 week-long trips to Killarney P.P. and has held up fine so far.
-
Patricks Dad
- Posts: 1476
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:11 pm
- Location: Warrenville, Illinois
Moonman, that's prett slick. I'll definitely keep it in mind. Laying in bed last night, I pondered something like that but but instead of attaching as shown, I imagined something that would sit upright and be useable as a backrest while paddling (I have some back problems so always paddle with one of those seat cushion/back support gadgets). It would be cool if those portage pads could double as back support while paddling (rather than only being "in service" while portaging.
mdevenyi,
That looks great.
thanks!
mdevenyi,
That looks great.
thanks!
-
AsaBlanchard
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 10:10 pm
- Location: Lexington, KY
Goodness,
I am glad I finished my inwales and outwales before I read this blog. You gentleman have my head spinning. I was lucky I could hold my inwales still while I hand planed into shape. Who cares what the canoe weighs? Eat more steak and lift weights. One of my co-workers is dyslexic and his 16' canoe turned into 19' and his 36" width turned into 39". He is a little dude so he puts it on a boat trailer and takes it to the river and smiles when every body points at his pretty wood barge. It will haul all the "stuff" his wife wants to bring and then some.
Asa
I am glad I finished my inwales and outwales before I read this blog. You gentleman have my head spinning. I was lucky I could hold my inwales still while I hand planed into shape. Who cares what the canoe weighs? Eat more steak and lift weights. One of my co-workers is dyslexic and his 16' canoe turned into 19' and his 36" width turned into 39". He is a little dude so he puts it on a boat trailer and takes it to the river and smiles when every body points at his pretty wood barge. It will haul all the "stuff" his wife wants to bring and then some.
Asa
-
Patricks Dad
- Posts: 1476
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:11 pm
- Location: Warrenville, Illinois
Wow, that could generate lots of responses. Here's one. For some people/circumstances, it probably doesn't matter much. But as a 52 year old guy (with the body of a 62 year old guy) who likes to trip in the wilderness, getting across the portage in 1 trip means carrying everything in one go. Double portaging means walking 3X as far. There is something to be said about the joys of double portaging and I do it occasionally just for the opportunity to look around more. But if you are in a hurry, the portage is busy or you are getting swallowed by bugs, the ability to single portage is a plus. If you put on a 70 pound pack of your food/gear on your back, picking up that canoe with another 50, 60 or 70 pounds is not a pleasant experience (and unsafe in some of the terrain you find on a portage). My brittle bones aren't going to get much younger from eating more steak and exercising more (although perhaps good advice).AsaBlanchard wrote:Goodness,
Who cares what the canoe weighs? Eat more steak and lift weights.Asa
There is also lots to be said about making that pack as light as possible (but that's a different subject).
The last boat I built, just for fun and looks, was built with ribs. It weighs 65 pounds. While I'm really happy with the look and enjoy paddling it on flatwater with easy access, I would never be able to single portage that thing safely with a pack (and therefore would not take it on a lengthy wilderness trip unless I was with for example my 22 year old son who is still imortal). Tandem tripping changes the equation quite a bit and group tripping (2 or 3 canoes) is different yet. Solo tripping is a different deal.
Different boats have different requirements for different reasons. In a given use-case, some factors indeed matter more than others. We do tend to focus on weight almost across the board (and perhaps too much in circumstances where it may not matter).
But it's hard to avoid looking at parameters that are so measurable such as weight.
-
BearLeeAlive
- Posts: 196
- Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:00 pm
My biggest weight savings could be captured by removing 20-25 lbs of excess off my body, and getting down to 200. The process of doing so will also likely strengthen my 52 (soon to be 53) year old body.
I think for me, one of the biggest reasons to keep the weight down as much as possible, is the challenge to do so with a build that is not compromised strength wise. There is no reason to overbuild just because we know it will work. While I am quite capable of carrying a heavy canoe, I do enjoy the ease of which my lighter ones can be handled. My Swift Winisk at 40 lbs is a joy to toss around by myself. My 63 lb prospector feels like it weighs more than twice as much.
I think for me, one of the biggest reasons to keep the weight down as much as possible, is the challenge to do so with a build that is not compromised strength wise. There is no reason to overbuild just because we know it will work. While I am quite capable of carrying a heavy canoe, I do enjoy the ease of which my lighter ones can be handled. My Swift Winisk at 40 lbs is a joy to toss around by myself. My 63 lb prospector feels like it weighs more than twice as much.
-JIM-
-
AsaBlanchard
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 10:10 pm
- Location: Lexington, KY
Patricks Dad,
You are correct it would be much better to have a lighter canoe so the portage carry would be that much better. My statements regarding the barge are truthful, the other's were just out of my ignorance and remembering how hard it was to build the inwale in the first place. Good Luck with the Uni-Wale. And forgive my ignorance.
Asa Blanchard
You are correct it would be much better to have a lighter canoe so the portage carry would be that much better. My statements regarding the barge are truthful, the other's were just out of my ignorance and remembering how hard it was to build the inwale in the first place. Good Luck with the Uni-Wale. And forgive my ignorance.
Asa Blanchard
Randy,
An additional benefit of the removeable yoke is it can built curved out so that there's enough room under the canoe when carrying so that the head doesn't hit the hull. Solos often aren't as deep as larger canoes so there's less space between yoke and hull.
Another (yokeless) solution is to bungee the paddles in, onto both thwarts so that the blades sit on the shoulders at the balance point. But this can be murder on a long portage as far as comfort goes. And the thwarts need to be recessed to accept the paddles so they won't slip out of place.
The problem with fixed yokes in dedicated solos is the paddler must sit or kneel amidships and the yoke occupies the same space, or very close to it. The best solution I've seen is still a removeable yoke with grooves routed at either end, and those slide in over the inwales. The yoke was kept in place with bungees connected to a thwart... quick to install and comfortable to carry.I want to avoid the removable yoke approach. When I hit a portage, I want to be walking with all my gear in under a minute. A removable yoke would probably take more time than I would want to spend (but that indeed is a last resort).
An additional benefit of the removeable yoke is it can built curved out so that there's enough room under the canoe when carrying so that the head doesn't hit the hull. Solos often aren't as deep as larger canoes so there's less space between yoke and hull.
Another (yokeless) solution is to bungee the paddles in, onto both thwarts so that the blades sit on the shoulders at the balance point. But this can be murder on a long portage as far as comfort goes. And the thwarts need to be recessed to accept the paddles so they won't slip out of place.