New small boat patent

[bilgeboy]

Icetreader,

You are close by to me, and I would love to check out the operation one day. If you would like to give a tour, please send me an email.

Thanks,

Mike

[icetreader]

Originally Posted by Deering

....That would be a correct interpretation in an entirely static situation - if the rider was just a lump of clay that might happen, though it would have to be an awfully steep wave face. In reality, the rider can have a major effect on the response to the wave simply by simply leaning into it, and that lean is made more effective by the fact that buoyancy is far outboard - the lean doesn't have to be very much to get the CG inside the footprint.

Touche Deering! This goes directly to what I'm saying about 'micronautics' -the science of designing water crafts that are so small that a passenger can capsize them just by looking behind his shoulder...

Originally Posted by Deering

Would I paddle a W boat down the Grand Canyon? Not a chance,

Of course not, and neither would I.
However, it is possible to design a W Kayak with a slightly wider saddle and considerably wider hulls that would be much stabler than this first (rather narrow) commercial model and would make such venture as easy as rafting.
BTW, inflatable 'cat-yaks' have been used for whitewater paddling for decades.

Originally Posted by Deering

The jumping stunt doesn't demonstrate much, and appears to have limited value in the real world.

What's the real world?
Between us, isn't boatdesign.net almost entirely about toys? - Some of which are relatively small and inexpensive, and others are bigger and more expensive. You may not be impressed by this stunt and that's OK with me but many people find it exciting and 'useful' to stand in their small boat - whether it's for fishing, paddling or just stretching their limbs.

Originally Posted by Deering

The wet entry point is another good one. You should show that on your website. And why not put bulkheads or foam into the ends of the hulls to provide flotation? With that I would bet that a person could ride in it almost competely full of water.

Deering,
I've visited dozens of kayak manufacturers' websites and never saw a photo of a wet entry, although for most paddlers it's probably more practical than the eskimo roll. Why? -For the same reason car manufacturers show you pictures of airbags but not pictures of their product crushed or overturned.
As for foam bulkheads, we offer them as a standard option free of charge (check the 'Product Info' page). In addition, we offer three options of above-waterline side floatation kits that are much more useful since they can actually prevent water from getting inside the cockpit if the boat happens to lay on its side.

Originally Posted by Deering

I haven't paddled a W, but the appeal of paddling standing up doesn't resonate with me. What's the point? Do people do it a lot? Is it faster or more efficient?

Is skiing more fun than sledding? Some people would say it is and other would say it's not

Originally Posted by Deering

A catamaran gains its stability from the separation of the hulls. If the beam is being limited by retaining the ability to paddle standing, why not sacrifice that capability and get a wider, and significantly more stable boat in the seated position?

Why not indeed? It's possible to design W kayaks that are much more stable than the model featuring on WaveWalk's website.

Originally Posted by Deering

Your website makes a lot of comparisons with monohulls. If I had read your website starting paddling, I would have been sure that before going to my certain death I would have been cold and uncomfortable. Good for marketing, but not true!

Statistics show that the great majority of kayakers prefer to paddle wide, 'recreational' kayaks and not the long and skinny 'classic' models.

Originally Posted by Deering

I've spent many hundreds of hours in a kayak, and have never capsized. Where I paddle (SE Alaska) your kayak would be much colder and wetter. It's often chilly here, and it rains a lot. A monohull kayak has a nice snug cockpit with a sprayskirt to keep rain out. Your boat is exposed.

And how much time did you spend in a W kayak?
I weigh 200 lb and when I paddle a W Kayak I have 14" of freeboard. How much freeboard do you have in your monokayak?
I W surf in New Hampshire and paddle in the winter on partly forzen rivers and never felt the need for a spray skirt, but if someone felt the need for one I'd say 'why not? -go ahead and use one in your W Kayak!'

Originally Posted by Deering

I fish out of my kayak - brought up a 250 lbs halibut a couple years ago. A W would have worked easier, but it's definitely feasible in a monokayak.

Kayak fishing is an idea I really like, and fishing from monokayaks is indeed feasible, but not much more... In order for such an activity to be 'fun' for most people it should also be simple, easy and practiced in relative comfort, which monokayaks can't offer for most people.

Originally Posted by Deering

Yoav, an area you should market to is the boating community. Any boat that is too large to beach needs some sort of dinghy. Generally that means some sort of inflatable or rowing dinghy. Your boat will outperform any small rowing boat, and it has the stability and large cockpit to permit easy entry from a boat (I have standard kayaks for my boat and they require some gymnastices to get into safely). It's also small and light enough to be strapped to the roof.

I agree.
The truth is that I find it difficult to focus in one direction with this product since it already offers an unusually wide range of applications.
This is one of the reasons I'm participating in these forums: I'd like to see more boat designers (kayaks, canoes, cats, dinghies, moths etc.) take this W technology to new directions and develop new solutions in their respective fields.
I'm offering some ideas in my boatdesign.net design gallery and on this page: http://www.wavewalk.com/BOAT%20DESIGN%20GALLERY.html

Yoav

[Deering]

What's the real world? Between us, isn't boatdesign.net almost entirely about toys? - Some of which are relatively small and inexpensive, and others are bigger and more expensive.

Good response. I can't argue with that one.

I've visited dozens of kayak manufacturers' websites and never saw a photo of a wet entry, although for most paddlers it's probably more practical than the eskimo roll. Why? -For the same reason car manufacturers show you pictures of airbags but not pictures of their product crushed or overturned.

True, most manufacturers don't show wet entries, but the valid assumption is that most of the people researching their products are familiar with the reentry or roll processes - that process is essentially the same for all kayaks and can be readily learned from classes and books and web sites. You offer a unique product and therefore can't make that same assumption. I find wet entry a fairly difficult exercise on most kayaks - if your boat makes that process simpler (which I believe it would) then it might be valuable to exemplify that on your website, perhaps comparing a monokayak side by side.

Is skiing more fun than sledding? Some people would say it is and other would say it's not

Can't say - I snowboard. Different strokes. But my question was: is paddling from the standing position more efficient or provides other mechanical advantages than sitting?

It's possible to design W kayaks that are much more stable than the model featuring on WaveWalk's website.

What do you think is the maximum practical beam before seat width and paddle reach make it impractical?

Statistics show that the great majority of kayakers prefer to paddle wide, 'recreational' kayaks and not the long and skinny 'classic' models.

Which statistics would those be? Based on the number/types of kayaks sold? That's deceptive since the short, recreational kayaks are far cheaper and readily available at various outlets. Basing on that statistic only suggests that people prefer cheap & convenient kayaks. That being said, I won't disagree that there are a lot of recreational boats around. I've owned several - used them as dinghies from my big boat, mainly because they're shorter for stowage, have larger cockpits for entry, and have greater initial stability for entry from a boat which can be awkward. But most of them performed abysmally compared to my traditional kayaks. Hence my interest in W.

I weigh 200 lb and when I paddle a W Kayak I have 14" of freeboard. How much freeboard do you have in your monokayak?

Up here freeboard isn't the issue so much as rain protection. A spray skirt would be highly desired, or wear rubber clothes.

Kayak fishing is an idea I really like, and fishing from monokayaks is indeed feasible, but not much more... In order for such an activity to be 'fun' for most people it should also be simple, easy and practiced in relative comfort, which monokayaks can't offer for most people.

What's "fun"? Sledding is arguably easier, more convenient and comfortable than skiing...

This is one of the reasons I'm participating in these forums: I'd like to see more boat designers (kayaks, canoes, cats, dinghies, moths etc.) take this W technology to new directions and develop new solutions in their respective fields.

When I finish my current boat building project I'd be interested in building a variation of your concept. Not with any money-making intentions but for personal use and to test some ideas. I'd happily share results with you. Thoughts?

[icetreader]

Originally Posted by Deering

is paddling from the standing position more efficient or provides other mechanical advantages than sitting?

The answer is rather complex and discussed here: http://www.wavewalk.com/PADDLING%20POSITIONS.html

Originally Posted by Deering

What do you think is the maximum practical beam before seat width and paddle reach make it impractical?

That would depend on the paddler's height and built, and on the application.
I'd say that for a 6' paddler a 30" beam is probably still good for efficient power paddling.

Originally Posted by Deering

That's deceptive since the short, recreational kayaks are far cheaper and readily available at various outlets.

Most manufacturers who offer low cost plastic, 'chubby' recreational kayaks offer low cost 'skinny' and long models as well. The difference in the cost of production of such models is not very big.
99% of people who paddle kayaks (i.e. kayakers) can't roll a kayak and won't even consider trying to learn it. Out of the remaining 1% who know how to roll a kayak not all can really depend on their roll in real-life conditions.
Also, few kayakers can get back into their boats without any help.

Originally Posted by Deering

When I finish my current boat building project I'd be interested in building a variation of your concept. Not with any money-making intentions but for personal use and to test some ideas.

What ideas? I hope it's not trying the eskimo roll on the boat

Yoav

[DanishBagger]

Originally Posted by icetreader

Most manufacturers who offer low cost plastic, 'chubby' recreational kayaks offer low cost 'skinny' and long models as well.

The difference in the cost of production of such models is not very big.

That doesn't address the question. It doesn't matter if the expense is the same - it's what they can be sold for.

99% of people who paddle kayaks (i.e. kayakers) can't roll a kayak and won't even consider trying to learn it. Out of the remaining 1% who know how to roll a kayak not all can really depend on their roll in real-life conditions.

95 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot

Anyways, at least here, the few people I know that kayak, has to be able to make an eskimo-roll in order to join a club. If they can't, they get a course to begin with. Now, I'm not saying that everyone is in a club, nor am I saying that my "statistic" will hold true anywhere in the world, I'm merely pointing out, that that "statistic" isn't true here, and that you seem to have a lot of "science" and "statistics" where you quote yourself. That isn't science, that is marketing claims.

Andre

[JEM]

friendly discussion?

[DanishBagger]

Originally Posted by icetreader

Andre,

Now that you're saying that you've already paddled a kayak I'm thinking that maybe I should have attributed more weight to your comments.
I am also willing to admit that perhaps I should have tried harder to understand your sense of humor, but it looks like now I have lost you completely.

Since I believe that I'll be able to overcome this loss I'd like to thank you for taking the time to participate in this thread.

Sincerely,

Yoav

You still don't, or won't, get it, huh?

You putting me down because I'm not an avid kayak fan, has little bearing on whether my point was made in that post. Which it was. Read it again, maybe you will understand - or perhaps that is the very reason you have begun playing it down. Even if you were a pro paddler, so to speak, doesn't mean you get to make arguments that are free fantasy, making statistic statements pulled out your rear, nor that you are _the_ know-it-all über alles.

Your sarcasm is having a hard time hiding your lack of arguments.


Where is the statistics pulled from? Show me, because your three recent post has been feeble attempts to not show that you did indeed pull them out your arse, like I did with the 95 percent.


Edited (something was missing).

[DanishBagger]

Hmm, still the dodging.

a) Anyone on these forums, that have tried your kayak?

b) where's the real statistics showing that a mere one percent can do a greenland-roll?

[DanishBagger]

Did some posts go missing? This thread was more thna four pages at one time, now it's three.

[Jeff]

Yes - I removed several posts that seemed extremely hostile and which I did not believe contained any information -- I really hate to have to be a heavy-handed moderator, but I think it's important to maintain a friendly environment to discuss ideas and not a place for personal attacks.

Over a dozen members who have contributed a lot of valuable information to the forums have brought to my attention the fact that a few posters have made the forums much more unfriendly in the last month or so with unneeded jabs and personal attacks against other members. Thus I feel the need to moderate a bit. If a post contains interesting on-topic information, I will never touch it. If however a post is simply repeating the same thing over and over and over, or attacking another person's reputation, I believe it is in the interest of the forum to delete these and maintain a friendly atmosophere and to keep the focus on ideas.

[DanishBagger]

Ah, okay, Jeff, I was just wondering. Thanks

[ancient kayaker]

Wasn't able to access the patent but main features evident are increased stability due to twin hull and lowered CoG due to feet on bottom of hulls. Short so emphasis fun not performance, highly manouverable. Would have more draft and drag than comparable conventional kayak, not for the flat water lake paddler like me, meeting a submerged log or exploring shallow water could cause problems. This is a whole new class of kayak and could catch on; who knows where it could lead?

[Toot]

Originally Posted by ancient kayaker

Wasn't able to access the patent but main features evident are increased stability due to twin hull and lowered CoG due to feet on bottom of hulls.

I keep hearing people say this and I guess I need it explained to me.

Imagine I push two sections of 3-foot long PVC pipe (with an end cap) down through the bottom of the kayak, and then insert 20-foot tall stilts into that pipe, such that they stick up 17 feet in the air...

I then hop on those stilts and start to paddle along with ridiculously long paddles. Is my Center of Gravity 3 feet under the boat? Or 17+ feet above it?

I think the latter... some of you think otherwise?



Sure, my stilt-boat will have great static stability. But the polar moment of inertia is going to make turns a *very* dicey situation. Dynamic stability is going to be a PITA... sort of like the difference between stopping a spinning barbell, versus stopping a spinning bowling ball with a long rod stuck through it. It's not just the Center of Gravity, it's the polar moment of inertia caused by the distance between the CoG and the weights. In other words, there's a reason why high-wire artists use long heavy poles instead of carrying bowling balls as they try to walk across a skinny wire. It's the reason why Porsches have a bad habit of spinning with little warning, but offer unparalleled turn-in on a slalom course.

Your CoG is located somewhere around your belly-button. And it's around your belly-button regardless of where your feet are located. What the W boat has is a higher polar moment along its vertical axis. This will make it more resistant to capsizing.. because, like stationary barbell, getting it to start spinning (along the longitudinal axis) will be more difficult... but once it starts to go, it becomes like a spinning barbell... it'll be hard to stop! By contrast, the traditional kayak with a low polar moment, will feel very "tippy" because the bulk of its weight is focused very close to the CoG... just like a bowling ball that's easy to start spinning in one direction, and then in the other... but the lower polar moment means it requires little effort to shift from leaning on one side, to leaning on the other.

The W boat undoubtedly offers better stability... the cost of this is less maneuverability. You can't argue otherwise... these two are opposites in vehicle dynamics. This *may* be offset (to a degree), however, by the enhanced ability of the pilot/paddler to shift his weight to a greater degree while standing up. Nevertheless, this could also be a problem, as a pilot/paddler drastically out of position may be opening himself up to a much more dramatic splash or even injury... For example, I'd hate to be standing upright, leaning the boat to the left in an effort to keep it upright, while a wave pushes it over, capsizing it to the right. The whiplash could cause a most uncomfortable situation.... I think I'd have ice and heat packs on my back for a week after that! But, again, the boat is highly stable, so this scenario isn't nearly as likely as it would be if you were, say, trying the same stunt in a kayak.

Anyway... the claim that your CoG is where your foot falls is just flat out wrong. It's at your belly button.

[Poida]

Icetreader

Best o' luck with your boat. This is probably not the best forum to introduce it to because of all the suedo geeks that want to put their cents worth in and knock what is probably going to be a very marketable product.

It looks like an excellent craft for the guy that is sick of trying to cast 50 metres (or whatever in feet) off the shore but can paddle out and fish off what appears to be an excellent fishing platform.

Looks like maybe enough room there for some scuba gear.

I heard, in relation to marketing, when someone said McDonalds make the worst hamburgers in the world, but sell the most. The people who buy your boat probably don't know what the centre of gravity means. They just see themselves paddling offshore in a craft that has enough room for fishing tackle even flares and a marine radio.

Marketing can go wrong tho' sometimes the message you are trying to send out isn't the message that people receive. I was told in marketing you have to assume that people are idiots.

It might be an idea to separate your website into different websites ie fishing, surfing, family fun etc. as it appears that the general comments that have come from this forum is that someone would take out into the ocean with their fishing gear see a big wave and think, "why don't I stand up and get knocked arse over tit?" Although you are only demonstrating stability by standing up in a wave it seems to have confused people.

I reckon a fun sport would be to have josting competitions, two people standing up in the boats trying to knock each other off with their paddles.

Enough from me
Once again
Best o' luck