Nose cones |?

Inland paddling
Post Reply
Whitey1
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 6:13 pm
Location: Pyrenees
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 1 time

Nose cones |?

Post by Whitey1 » Mon Oct 16, 2017 11:04 am

Just spotted the worst attempt of all time to repair a split nose on what was otherwise a really good boat boat. It did make me wonder why don't more (or any) manufacturers these days offer a double layer up front, maybe with some softer, absorbing sandwich material between inner and outer. It might not look pretty but for a few oz added weight would it not be a sensible option ?

User avatar
Chalky723
Posts: 918
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 7:56 pm
Location: Cambridgeshire
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 10 times

Re: Nose cones |?

Post by Chalky723 » Mon Oct 16, 2017 11:25 am

I know the boats you're talking about ;-) It was a "Field Repair" & just had to last the trip I believe.

I agree though, it'd be nice to have them available & to have the choice to fit it or not as required.

D
Jackson Nirvana, LL Remix 69, BMW F650GS...

MaverickvRS
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 3:00 pm
Location: West Sussex
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Nose cones |?

Post by MaverickvRS » Mon Oct 16, 2017 11:54 am

All of our old scout boats used to have the reinforced "nose cone" as they had to stand up to the erratic use of the boats.

Think they were Perception Mirages and Dancers!

User avatar
Jim
Posts: 13900
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2002 2:14 pm
Location: Dumbarton
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: Nose cones |?

Post by Jim » Mon Oct 16, 2017 6:53 pm

My Corsica S came with a bow cap, it disappeared at some point, I always assumed I had snagged it on something endering at Hurley and ripped it off. Maybe manufacturers stopped doing them because they were rubbish and caused more damage than they avoided?

Colin C
Posts: 740
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 7:19 pm
Location: Bothwell
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Nose cones |?

Post by Colin C » Mon Oct 16, 2017 11:05 pm

Corran Andderson has got a boat that you change the nose or tail in case of damage. seems a good idea to me. http://www.soulwaterman.com/pages/impactprotection

Colin

User avatar
DaveBland
Posts: 3657
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:01 pm
Location: Calgary Canada
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Nose cones |?

Post by DaveBland » Tue Oct 17, 2017 5:12 pm

Ironically Prijon Pure's came with them. The one boat that was indestructible anyway.
Rotobats on the other hand had them and needed them.
dave

Whitey1
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 6:13 pm
Location: Pyrenees
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Nose cones |?

Post by Whitey1 » Tue Oct 17, 2017 7:35 pm

From Colin C.
you change the nose or tail in case of damage. seems a good idea to me. http://www.soulwaterman.com/pages/impactprotection
. Agreed, looks a clever idea and he's actually applied for a patent.
Corran is doing a lot of complaining about his boats not being allowed in extreme races since they're a bit too long and thinks the rules should be changed to accommodate his designs. Wonder why he doesn't just design a shorter nose and tail to fit in with the rules.

SimonMW
Posts: 2194
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 11:39 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Nose cones |?

Post by SimonMW » Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:50 am

Corran isn't complaining specifically that some of his boats can't be entered, but that the rules are stifling design innovation in general, stacking the odds in favour of the big companies and their paddlers (who, incidentally can paddle both prototype boats not available to the public in competition, and also produce 'race ready' versions of existing boats with thinner plastic that aren't available to normal paddlers) and also mean that smaller kayak companies boats (not just his) are therefore excluded due to the costs of setting up plastic boat production. Especially when modern composites can be made incredibly strong now (composite doesn't = 7kg slalom boat, it is wide and varied in possibilities).

He doesn't want to design a boat to accommodate the rules, because certain volume distribution and designs lend themselves to being slightly longer. There's no useful reasoning for the 9ft rule at all, and the plastic boats only rule also makes no accounting for modern construction techniques or the possibilities for modern composite construction such as that employed by Corran for his custom boats.

He has some very good points.

clarky999
Posts: 2877
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 11:42 pm
Location: Innsbruck, Austria
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Re: Nose cones |?

Post by clarky999 » Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:15 am

SimonMW wrote:
Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:50 am
Corran isn't complaining specifically that some of his boats can't be entered, but that the rules are stifling design innovation in general, stacking the odds in favour of the big companies and their paddlers (who, incidentally can paddle both prototype boats not available to the public in competition, and also produce 'race ready' versions of existing boats with thinner plastic that aren't available to normal paddlers) and also mean that smaller kayak companies boats (not just his) are therefore excluded due to the costs of setting up plastic boat production. Especially when modern composites can be made incredibly strong now (composite doesn't = 7kg slalom boat, it is wide and varied in possibilities).

He doesn't want to design a boat to accommodate the rules, because certain volume distribution and designs lend themselves to being slightly longer. There's no useful reasoning for the 9ft rule at all, and the plastic boats only rule also makes no accounting for modern construction techniques or the possibilities for modern composite construction such as that employed by Corran for his custom boats.

He has some very good points.
Not sure about that. Talking specifically about Sickline, Waka and Letmann are both small companies and have done very well there (Waka maybe less so now, but that's in large part due to their initial sickline success). Design innovation definitely seems to trickle through to the normal market - look at the number of 9Rs and Gangstas around on the water these days. Also I think prototypes are excluded and only production kayaks are allowed to be entered? On the weight front, I think most manufacturers do actually sell the lighter race versions - EXO do anyway.

I think if you abolished the 9 foot rule you'd see the race dominated by boats like the Green Boat and Stinger, which only the big companies can afford to produce (in full production numbers), and frankly have little use to the general market.

Sickline's always been a creek race. To me it makes sense to restrict it to boats people actually use - it keeps it relevant. Otherwise you'd end up with athletes using incredibly specialised boats that no-one could justify buying for actual whitewater use, like slalom (or the Green boat), which would be restrictive.

User avatar
Jim
Posts: 13900
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2002 2:14 pm
Location: Dumbarton
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: Nose cones |?

Post by Jim » Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:23 pm

The idea behind the rules is to prevent 'chequebook racing' where it comes down more to who has the richest sponsor than who is necessarily the best paddler - if some manufacturers are getting away with supplying non-production boats to chosen paddlers they are flouting the rules and the organisers need to find a way to stop them doing it. That said Hou/Big Dog were allowed to use prototype Dropzone OC1s in King of The Alps last year because they were supposed to be the final protos and the same as the production boats, just that there was a massive hold up in the start of production. I think they also lifted the length restriction because it didn't really fit most OC1s at the time.

One possibility would be to have restricted and unrestricted classes in some of the races so that people can race in stock boats with a chance of taking the title, or they can race in something cutting edge for a slightly different title.
This sort of thing is done all the time across many sports - motor racing has it's formulas, sailing has it classes, in kite buggy the Scottish association have an open class and 16" wheel class (smaller cheaper buggies), sea kayak racing is sometimes broken down into touring kayaks, race kayaks and surf skis. Even the Wild Water Racing community are happy to classify different kinds of boats separately when enough of each start (usually 3 of a kind) - Wavehoppers are usually separated from composite boats, slalom boats sometimes race, creek boats, I have even entered in open canoes (although usually on my own and classified with the C1 WWRs), and I'm pretty sure that if there isn't a suitable category on the entry form if a few of you want to enter a new category they will add it on the day.

As the extreme racing discipline grows you will find more and more athletes training specifically for it (some do already) and having dedicated race boats - whether it is a stock PE creeker to comply with the rules that they just keep scratch free by only using on race day or some high tech specialised extreme race boat of the future. I am sure that in time there will be different classes, or different races to cater for those who want to use standard equipment and those who want to use the best.

The thing is that the argument
clarky999 wrote: Otherwise you'd end up with athletes using incredibly specialised boats that no-one could justify buying for actual whitewater use, like slalom (or the Green boat),
completely misses the point - those athletes are getting far more time on the water in their boats than just about any non-career paddler. My cheap (less than a creek boat) slalom K1 is pretty well trashed and repaired after 2 years, it is still half the weight of a creek boat and I have spent many more hours in it than I have in any of my plastic boats. The people that paddle specialised boats generally get even more use out of them than people paddling stock boats ever will. I train about once per week and use races for extra training, most athletes will be training twice per day, with most of the sessions being in the boat. Some will be putting in 3 sessions per day. It doesn't matter whether they are doing slalom or sprint or marathon or freestyle or polo or wild water or extreme racing, the people at the top of each discipline will be training that hard and will not be able to comprehend the argument about justification of a specialist boat.

SimonMW
Posts: 2194
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 11:39 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Nose cones |?

Post by SimonMW » Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:36 pm

Not sure about that. Talking specifically about Sickline, Waka and Letmann are both small companies and have done very well there (Waka maybe less so now, but that's in large part due to their initial sickline success). Design innovation definitely seems to trickle through to the normal market - look at the number of 9Rs and Gangstas around on the water these days.
I wouldn't say that those boats are innovative. They are iterative, but are in no way offering anything groundbreaking. The design Corran put forward on the other hand was totally unlike anything else around.
Also I think prototypes are excluded and only production kayaks are allowed to be entered? On the weight front, I think most manufacturers do actually sell the lighter race versions - EXO do anyway.
Well, this is one of Corrans beefs with the competition. It is SUPPOSED to be for production kayaks, but quite often the big names are a turned a blind eye to as they enter a prototype. This year it was Michael Ramazza in the new Wavesport pre-production boat. When I've been there before there have been test boats from various manufacturers.
I think if you abolished the 9 foot rule you'd see the race dominated by boats like the Green Boat and Stinger, which only the big companies can afford to produce (in full production numbers), and frankly have little use to the general market.
If that type of boat gets the job done, why shouldn't they enter? There's no guarantee they'd be fastest, especially when put up against a totally new type of hull design. If it was opened up to allow composites then the small companies could enter such boats as well, or new ones, which is exactly Corran's point.
Sickline's always been a creek race. To me it makes sense to restrict it to boats people actually use - it keeps it relevant. Otherwise you'd end up with athletes using incredibly specialised boats that no-one could justify buying for actual whitewater use, like slalom (or the Green boat), which would be restrictive.
It's a straw man argument, because as a result of the Sickline the boats have become specialised anyway, with many new creek designs being designed to win races with the spurious addition that "Oh yes, you can use this for every day creeking as well". A bit like sports cars that are designed to get fast laps on the Nuerenburgring but have hideous ride qualities when used on normal roads.

As you say, innovation trickles down anyway. So what's the problem with having true open ended design innovation? The best ideas can then be filtered down into normal production boats. That's the only way true innovation will happen, because nobody is going to risk it otherwise, and all we will remain with is slight changes to the same old concepts and designs, which is what we have now. I am at pains to understand why so many kayakers do not want big changes or innovation and always just want to stick to the status quo. Any time anyone wants to try something new its "That won't work", "We don't want that", "It's too different, it'll never catch on". Dull, dull, dull.

If Corran hadn't turned playboating on it's head, we'd all still be doing rodeo in Dancers and RPM's. There was the same sort of "can't do" attitude towards his flat hulled short boats.
The idea behind the rules is to prevent 'chequebook racing' where it comes down more to who has the richest sponsor than who is necessarily the best paddler
If strong composites were allowed anybody can have a totally custom one off boat made by Soul for not a whole lot more than a normal boat, or use one of the creekers by AK composites. The ability to use custom boats in freestyle hasn't harmed things at all. Having a 9ft length limit does nothing to prevent 'chequebook racing'. It's just an arbitrary made up length. It used to be 8'5 when the competition started.

The 9ft rule also disadvantages design because as volumes go up for larger paddlers, the rocker and hull design cannot be optimum. So everything is crammed into the 9ft rule length. Which then also transfers to every day creek boat design. So you are buying boats that have been optimised for Sickline and creek races, not for the actual purpose of recreational use.

As you say, Jim, they could just kill this whole debate by making a different class and allowing an anything goes category. But it seems even that sort of innovation is too much.

User avatar
Jim
Posts: 13900
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2002 2:14 pm
Location: Dumbarton
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: Nose cones |?

Post by Jim » Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:30 pm

Rules always come in with good intentions to level the playing field, but there will always be people with different viewpoints.

In buggy racing we had few limits - eventually on the continent some small kids were using buggies heavier than themselves (putting lead into the tubes as permanent weight) so they could fly bigger kites than they could actually handle when out of the buggy, it was an accident waiting to happen. The knee jerk reaction was to apply a 60kg max weight limit for everyone. Sub 60kg kids were still able to fly overpowered, at the time I was closer to 120kg and I struggled to build a buggy stiff enough for my weight within the 60kg limit (larger diameter tubes to increase stiffness). The additional rule that pilots must launch the kite whilst standing and then get in the buggy probably did more to stop lightweights flying overpowered than the weight limit ever did.

Length is a common restriction for boat racing, simply because longer boats go faster before the power requirement becomes exponential. Where you set the limit is always going to be arbitrary, but if you don't like a 9' limit, the next category (which race on slightly easier water and has been around for years) can go to 14'9" (actually 4.5m), and can be lighter (10kg) for kayaks... Mind you, I'm sure I heard a rumour that ICF are looking at making them shorter so they can use artificial courses more, that would spoil it.

SimonMW
Posts: 2194
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 11:39 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Nose cones |?

Post by SimonMW » Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:37 pm

The ICF have abolished the weight minimums for slalom boats now haven't they?

There is one other aspect/advantage to opening up the rules to more innovation and composites. Spectator value. Rallying was never the same after Group B was abolished. After all these years the organisers of the WRC have realised this and have now allowed cars in with a much more 'Group B' style development. It could get exciting again.

I know I've rather hijacked this thread. I apologise.

User avatar
Jim
Posts: 13900
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2002 2:14 pm
Location: Dumbarton
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: Nose cones |?

Post by Jim » Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:38 pm

Nope.
Slalom boat lengths went down in 2006 (from 4m to 3.5m).
This year ICF increased minimum weight of K1 and C1 from 8kg to 9kg, BC followed suit but only apply dimensions and weights in div 1 and Prem. I can't remember C2 weights, I think they went up too.
The 'well meaning' behind the increase is to enable 2-piece boats to be equally competitive making it easier for the few international competitors to fly with boats. I think they consulted some manufacturers and they came up with 1kg extra for the flanges and bolts to make a boat split.
I think top end boats can come in around 7kg in smaller sizes (i.e. not in my size!) so extra weight has to be fixed in permanently, under or behind the seat is the usual place. It does mean that light boats with weight at the seat will be easier to turn fast - and that should apply to splits too because the join is usually around the seat area, they just have to work out how to make the external side of the joint as smooth as a 1 piece boat...

Anyway, back on off topic, it looks like the Ocoee race doesn't have any length restrictions from this video, I don't think it is very extreme though?


Whitey1
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 6:13 pm
Location: Pyrenees
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Nose cones |?

Post by Whitey1 » Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:36 am

[quoteI know I've rather hijacked this thread. I apologise.][/quote] Don't apologise Simon, it's just moved onto something more interesting. I'm far more inclined to agree with Clarky's thoughts than your own though I have to say. I think a huge part of the Sickline attraction is the standardised format, though it isn't right to make rules and bend them even though I was pleased to see the Wavesport in action. And some of your points I have to disagree with, esp the part about comparing the Sickline entry boats to your racing car and suggesting they are designed to win races first and foremost and sort of mis-lead the public saying they can run creeks too. Please excuse me if I've paraphrased inaccurately here but that's how it reads to me and I have to say as respectfully as I can....... Nonsense my friend, have you paddled the Waka Tuna which cleaned up a few years back? Fantastic boat to creek with. Have you paddled a Nirvana. Utterly, utterly brilliant boat to paddle. It seems to me rather the opposite to your car analogy. The boats which are winning the races move the game forward for the bulk of ordinary customer paddlers. Now re Corran. A design and paddling genius no doubt but how many of his boats do you see on your river trips. In the past couple of years I have seen......eh, NONE, Zilch, Zero, Nada or in Scottish vernacular Hee-Haw ! I'm sorry but I find his attitude to the event(s) a bit like the old Scottish Grandmother at her grandson's army passing out parade, 'Look, they're all oot o' step except fur Oor Jock !' Why doesn't he just fit a shorter nose cone? Would it utterly spoil the performance characteristics of the boat or is it a pride that perfection cannot be tampered with. Well they said that about the most beautiful machine (IMHO) EVER created, the Supermarine Spitfire, but they found that when they clipped the wings and compromised what appeared to be aesthetic perfection matched to engineering magnificence..... in certain conditions (low altitude where much of the combat took place) it actually worked better! Final word for now before the replies come in and maybe take off in another direction.....my favourite moment in the whole Sickline this year was Martina Wegman in second place on the Nomad ! yes I paddle a Nomad, and it was a sheer joy to watch it in the hands of an expert, even though she didn't win in the end. Her Champion's Killer was the best on display the full day.

SimonMW
Posts: 2194
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 11:39 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Nose cones |?

Post by SimonMW » Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:53 am

Nonsense my friend, have you paddled the Waka Tuna which cleaned up a few years back? Fantastic boat to creek with. Have you paddled a Nirvana. Utterly, utterly brilliant boat to paddle.
For *some* paddlers. It depends on your paddling style and what you need from a boat. But make no mistake, those boats were designed primarily with events like the Sickline in mind. If you speak with the designers directly they make no secret of it! You only had to listen to Sam Sutton one year when I was there talking about how he was designing a boat to supersede the Tuna (what I assume became the Gangsta) because the Tuna was too slow compared to the other newer boats in the event. It is much more of a nonsense to suggest that they have been primarily designed with every day paddlers in mind. They haven't. Guys like Sutton want a boat to win races in, and that's where it comes from. That's why they have released the OG. A boat that they have said specifically that is intended for all out creeking and not to win races in, because they have noticed there's a bit too much in the way of race focused design going on.

It is also no secret whatsoever that the Nirvana was designed totally with creek racing in mind. The fact that you can use them (and they can sell them as such) for every one to use daily is a side line. They have to make their money back after all.

Somebody mentioned Lettemann earlier on as an example of how a smaller company can still produce a boat that wins Sickline. When was the last time it released a new creeker compared with, say, Jackson? It can't afford to compete with such companies by updating it's boats regularly to keep up with the competition. If composites were allowed, I'm sure they would produce some incredible designs!
Now re Corran. A design and paddling genius no doubt but how many of his boats do you see on your river trips. In the past couple of years I have seen......eh, NONE, Zilch, Zero, Nada or in Scottish vernacular Hee-Haw ! I'm sorry but I find his attitude to the event(s) a bit like the old Scottish Grandmother at her grandson's army passing out parade, 'Look, they're all oot o' step except fur Oor Jock !' Why doesn't he just fit a shorter nose cone? Would it utterly spoil the performance characteristics of the boat or is it a pride that perfection cannot be tampered with. Well they said that about the most beautiful machine (IMHO) EVER created, the Supermarine Spitfire, but they found that when they clipped the wings and compromised what appeared to be aesthetic perfection matched to engineering magnificence.....
Nobody in their right mind could call Corran's race creeker design 'pretty to look at'! It's entire form is about function, and it's butt ugly as a result. Nothing to do with fitting a shorter nose cone. A few inches makes a huge difference in boat design.The nose has been design in a specific way. The right length for the right design, which is applying precisely your Spitfire terminology. They didn't modify the Spit to fit with rules, they did it because the engineering found it was the best way. In other words you have proven my point!

No, you don't spot many of his boats around (well actually you do. Tons of his Riot designs going around!), but then again he's only got back into the kayak game in the last year or so after being involved in surfing and SUP for an age.

clarky999
Posts: 2877
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 11:42 pm
Location: Innsbruck, Austria
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Re: Nose cones |?

Post by clarky999 » Fri Oct 20, 2017 12:57 pm

Jim wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:23 pm

The thing is that the argument
clarky999 wrote: Otherwise you'd end up with athletes using incredibly specialised boats that no-one could justify buying for actual whitewater use, like slalom (or the Green boat),
completely misses the point - those athletes are getting far more time on the water in their boats than just about any non-career paddler. My cheap (less than a creek boat) slalom K1 is pretty well trashed and repaired after 2 years, it is still half the weight of a creek boat and I have spent many more hours in it than I have in any of my plastic boats. The people that paddle specialised boats generally get even more use out of them than people paddling stock boats ever will. I train about once per week and use races for extra training, most athletes will be training twice per day, with most of the sessions being in the boat. Some will be putting in 3 sessions per day. It doesn't matter whether they are doing slalom or sprint or marathon or freestyle or polo or wild water or extreme racing, the people at the top of each discipline will be training that hard and will not be able to comprehend the argument about justification of a specialist boat.
Actually I think you miss my point! Although I'm not quite clear on what you're saying - if you mean the best paddlers will be training hard and often with the tools of their trade, and that those who do are highly likely to win, then sure I agree. But the fact that very very few people take their slalom boats out for a general whitewater rip down their local river, or do much other than slalom training (and the occasional Bitches surf session) in them, shows the divorce between that uber specialisation and 'normal' whitewater paddling.

That's fine for slalom, as it's never pretended to be anything other than what it is. But Sickline has always been a 'creek race' and is about more than the athletes. I don't care if Sam Sutton can go faster than he does now in a £10k/15 foot/5kg Gangster SL GTX, or whatever super specialised design would evolve if the only consideration was Sickline times in the hands of an elite athlete and popular use/sales could be totally disregarded, and I still wouldn't care if he spent 300 days or 90% of his paddling time in it preparing for that one day where it matters. It would be irrelevant to me and as divorced from popular whitewater culture as slalom is. I also wonder if the athletes that dominate Sickline now would actually want to spend that much time in a super specialised boat - for most of the year most seem to focus on running hard whitewater above all else?

The fact that Sickline is raced in creekboats, and usually in the boats that the competitors actually want to use for day-to-day hard whitewater and non-race paddling, is exactly what makes it interesting and relevant and why it influences better creekboat design. In my opinion anyway. And I wonder if this sort of relevancy is why the ICF are trying this new 'extreme slalom' (creek boat boaterX) crap?
Last edited by clarky999 on Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

clarky999
Posts: 2877
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 11:42 pm
Location: Innsbruck, Austria
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Re: Nose cones |?

Post by clarky999 » Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:07 pm

SimonMW wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:53 am
Nonsense my friend, have you paddled the Waka Tuna which cleaned up a few years back? Fantastic boat to creek with. Have you paddled a Nirvana. Utterly, utterly brilliant boat to paddle.
For *some* paddlers. It depends on your paddling style and what you need from a boat. But make no mistake, those boats were designed primarily with events like the Sickline in mind. If you speak with the designers directly they make no secret of it! You only had to listen to Sam Sutton one year when I was there talking about how he was designing a boat to supersede the Tuna (what I assume became the Gangsta) because the Tuna was too slow compared to the other newer boats in the event. It is much more of a nonsense to suggest that they have been primarily designed with every day paddlers in mind. They haven't. Guys like Sutton want a boat to win races in, and that's where it comes from. That's why they have released the OG. A boat that they have said specifically that is intended for all out creeking and not to win races in, because they have noticed there's a bit too much in the way of race focused design going on.

It is also no secret whatsoever that the Nirvana was designed totally with creek racing in mind. The fact that you can use them (and they can sell them as such) for every one to use daily is a side line. They have to make their money back after all.
That's kinda the point: they couldn't make something radically specialised, so have to make conventional creek boat designs better* to win.

*No faster isn't always better for normal whitewater - see the OG and Machno - but enough people choose to paddle 9Rs and Gangstas that it clearly works for many.

Definitely seems to have worked for Jackson: after making pigs for years, now they've thought about race design a bit they've made a brilliant creek boat! ;)

SimonMW
Posts: 2194
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 11:39 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Nose cones |?

Post by SimonMW » Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:37 pm

That's kinda the point: they couldn't make something radically specialised, so have to make conventional creek boat designs better* to win.
Which stifles actual true innovative design. Ie we're stuck with tiny little iterations of the same tired old designs rather than anything truly creative innovative, and new. The same sorts of rules that make slalom and F1 dull.
Definitely seems to have worked for Jackson: after making pigs for years, now they've thought about race design a bit they've made a brilliant creek boat! ;)
They'd make an even better one if they weren't constrained by silly rules that spill over into most 'for sale' designs.

User avatar
Jim
Posts: 13900
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2002 2:14 pm
Location: Dumbarton
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: Nose cones |?

Post by Jim » Fri Oct 20, 2017 3:07 pm

clarky999 wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2017 12:57 pm
Jim wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:23 pm

The thing is that the argument
clarky999 wrote: Otherwise you'd end up with athletes using incredibly specialised boats that no-one could justify buying for actual whitewater use, like slalom (or the Green boat),
completely misses the point - those athletes are getting far more time on the water in their boats than just about any non-career paddler. My cheap (less than a creek boat) slalom K1 is pretty well trashed and repaired after 2 years, it is still half the weight of a creek boat and I have spent many more hours in it than I have in any of my plastic boats. The people that paddle specialised boats generally get even more use out of them than people paddling stock boats ever will. I train about once per week and use races for extra training, most athletes will be training twice per day, with most of the sessions being in the boat. Some will be putting in 3 sessions per day. It doesn't matter whether they are doing slalom or sprint or marathon or freestyle or polo or wild water or extreme racing, the people at the top of each discipline will be training that hard and will not be able to comprehend the argument about justification of a specialist boat.
Actually I think you miss my point! Although I'm not quite clear on what you're saying - if you mean the best paddlers will be training hard and often with the tools of their trade, and that those who do are highly likely to win, then sure I agree. But the fact that very very few people take their slalom boats out for a general whitewater rip down their local river, or do much other than slalom training (and the occasional Bitches surf session) in them, shows the divorce between that uber specialisation and 'normal' whitewater paddling.
What I am saying is that 'actual whitewater' encompasses a huge amount more than the grade 5+ steep creeks that the currently fashionable creek boats are designed for.

I'm all for there being races where ordinary paddlers can turn up with their ordinary boat and have a chance to do well, I was simply pointing out that to consider specialised disciplines like slalom, WWR and freestyle as not using 'actual whitewater' is a mistake.
Plenty of slalom paddlers have creek boats for creeking, they don't paddle the intermediate grades where slalom boats would actually be fine, but they do paddle their slalom boats almost every day and often twice per day on actual whitewater, their creek boats are the ones they use occasionally.

If extreme racing continues to become specialised - and if it does I hope they manage to create a split so that ordinary paddlers in stock boats can still compete against each other whatever the elite end up doing, the top paddlers will have no problem justifying to themselves having a dedicated race boat, and once they do that, it can be as specialised and expensive as they like.

Slalom and WWR evolved from river running, both still have opportunities for non specialist paddlers to take part in non specialist boats - if you have any interest in that sort of thing and can't work it out for yourself (WWR is obvious, slalom not) get in touch. Pretty sure if anyone wants to try slalom in a creek boat it would be possible to get an entry at HPP next Sunday, but I might need to draw Dave's attention to the rules that allow it :)

clarky999
Posts: 2877
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 11:42 pm
Location: Innsbruck, Austria
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Re: Nose cones |?

Post by clarky999 » Fri Oct 20, 2017 4:21 pm

SimonMW wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:37 pm
That's kinda the point: they couldn't make something radically specialised, so have to make conventional creek boat designs better* to win.
Which stifles actual true innovative design. Ie we're stuck with tiny little iterations of the same tired old designs rather than anything truly creative innovative, and new. The same sorts of rules that make slalom and F1 dull.
9R was a pretty big departure from other creek boats of the day, but designers can be as innovative as they want under 9 foot and in plastic (and with enough grab handles haha!).
SimonMW wrote:
clarky999 wrote:Definitely seems to have worked for Jackson: after making pigs for years, now they've thought about race design a bit they've made a brilliant creek boat! ;)
They'd make an even better one if they weren't constrained by silly rules that spill over into most 'for sale' designs.
Green Race evidence suggests otherwise: http://jacksonkayak.com/blog/kayak/karma-unlimited

Though having not paddled it I'm not saying it's bad; I'm saying that - and by numbers using them it's abundantly clear - specialising the boat for the race without Sickline-style regulations has not lead to a better boat for use on typical whitewater.

clarky999
Posts: 2877
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 11:42 pm
Location: Innsbruck, Austria
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Re: Nose cones |?

Post by clarky999 » Fri Oct 20, 2017 4:31 pm

[quote=Jim

What I am saying is that 'actual whitewater' encompasses a huge amount more than the grade 5+ steep creeks that the currently fashionable creek boats are designed for.

I'm all for there being races where ordinary paddlers can turn up with their ordinary boat and have a chance to do well, I was simply pointing out that to consider specialised disciplines like slalom, WWR and freestyle as not using 'actual whitewater' is a mistake.
Plenty of slalom paddlers have creek boats for creeking, they don't paddle the intermediate grades where slalom boats would actually be fine, but they do paddle their slalom boats almost every day and often twice per day on actual whitewater, their creek boats are the ones they use occasionally.

If extreme racing continues to become specialised - and if it does I hope they manage to create a split so that ordinary paddlers in stock boats can still compete against each other whatever the elite end up doing, the top paddlers will have no problem justifying to themselves having a dedicated race boat, and once they do that, it can be as specialised and expensive as they like.

Slalom and WWR evolved from river running, both still have opportunities for non specialist paddlers to take part in non specialist boats - if you have any interest in that sort of thing and can't work it out for yourself (WWR is obvious, slalom not) get in touch. Pretty sure if anyone wants to try slalom in a creek boat it would be possible to get an entry at HPP next Sunday, but I might need to draw Dave's attention to the rules that allow it :)
[/quote]

That's fair (remembering the likes of the Ripper and Braap are designed for easier water too), and I don't intend to write slalom or WWR off in anyway.

I guess what I really mean is, that the thing I find so interesting/relevent about Sickline is it's the top paddlers in ordinary boats on a relatable stretch of river. I'm sure the athletes could already justify owning a dedicated race boat, but I think it would be a shame if it were to specialise to a point where they're using kit the typical recreational (probably a better way to phrase it?) whitewater paddler could justify or want to use.

Post Reply

Return to “Whitewater and Touring”