Canoe Questions

[Sailor]

So, I've reached the point where I need to make some decisions. I have fitted my decks to the Redbird but can't decide how I want the inboard edge to be shaped. I like a heart shape. It has a dainty feel to it. Anybody have any thoughts on that? Pictures of some different heart shaped canoe decks would be nice as well. The decks are made up of 3 triangles of bird's eye maple. All taper to a point at the stem. There is a bevel on the inboard edges of the outboard pieces so there's a bit of camber to the decks. You can see it in my Redbird Progress thread for pics of what I'm saying.

My other question has to do with my bowseat and yoke. The meathead who laid out the scupper pattern in the inwales made sure to put the bow seat too close to the bow. He shall remain nameless. Now, what I have to do is come up with a way to move the seat back with nowhere to hang it. What I plan on doing is suspending rails from the inwale where there's material to do the job, then put a cross member part way back that would hold up the other end of the seat track. That way, I could slide the seat fore and aft as needed for single or double paddling. Another possiblity is to use the aftermost cross member and install another one like it abaft the mid point of the canoe. Then I could wrap a couple of straps around the two cross members to make a comfortable portaging yoke subsitute. I'd be using the cross piece twice so saving the weight of an extra thwart. Thoughts on that? Or was I too verbose and not enough pictures?

http://www.suespray.com/images/canoebow.jpg

There's the seat arrangement I'm thinking of. Not as artistic as that one though. Much more functional.

The yoke arrangement I remember seeing somehwere but can't recall just where it was. I loved the idea because you could portage the canoe in either direction, whereas with a traditional yoke, you are commited to one direction. It was basically two dowels with straps stretched out between them. You could adjust where the canoe sat on your shoulders fore and aft for balance. If anybody has this setup, a few pics for ideas would be nice.
Thanks,
Daniel
(Slowest Redbird builder EVER!)

[Dave Hadfield]

I'm not sure how that yoke arrangement is set up exactly, but for sure you don't want to have your head locked into a small confined space. If you trip and fall -- which happens! -- you want to be able to throw the canoe off, and get rid of it without breaking your neck.

Another meathead -- who also shall remain nameless -- once had to re-make an entire bow seat to move it back to where a human could actually use it. But the sliding bow seat idea is quite common. There are pictures on the internet.

However this style...



is one I would NOT recommend, because it ties up too much of the volume of the boat, reducing carrying space, and more importantly you can't sit on the bow seat reversed, when solo, and paddle from there. Sometimes you want to do that when the boat is empty and you're solo.

Sorry if I'm beating the obvious to death.

Dave

[SamSam]

When I was making canoes I put dual sliding seats to be able to fine tune trim with different weight people. Mine were fiberglass, so the rest for the sliding rails towards the pointy part (The canoes could be used either way, there was no fwd or aft) was a support glassed to the hull. The other end hung directly from the thwart, which would eliminate that extra piece in Dave's photo. You have to somehow brace it eliminate any fore and aft movement. My seats were 'woven' ( with nylon cord) but rectangular for use either way.

What Dave said about trapping your head and breaking your neck is something I never thought of. That could ruin a trip!

I had small thwarts/handles in the end for two person carries.

[Todd Bradshaw]

After putting in all that work, I never "throw" my canoes anywhere and if I fall, the main objective is more like making sure that the canoe lands on top of me, rather than on the rocks. In any case, I have slipped and/or fallen numerous times on slick, steep portages using a double-thwart yoke and so far, still have a neck, so I doubt you're in any more danger of breaking your neck with that yoke than with any other type. Theoretically, I suppose one could come up with all sorts of horror scenarios, but that's what I've found after years of actually getting out there and using them in the real world.

The only place I've seen them was on the Hazen boats (Micmacs and Abenakis) and they continued to be used by Wilderness Boats (after Hazen sold the business) on their wood strip Micmacs as well as the few fiberglass Micmacs that they eventually built. The bars were 1.25" fir dowels, chosen mostly because of the stiffness per ounce of the fir. We tried one with white ash bars for something more classy once, and they were so springy that the bottom of the hull bounced against the top of your head unless it was a really deep hull. This is something that's worth doing a mock-up with clamped-on bars to check out clearances before you start drilling holes to mount anything.

I don't have a picture of the setup I finally settled on for my 18' Micmac tripping boat, but here is a shot from "The Strippers Guide To Canoe Building" Hazen's book. The bars are installed 15" apart at the center of the boat.



The seat belt web straps were basically junk, so we went looking for something better. The best solution we found were 4" wide Kelty polypro mesh backbands, which they sold for their backpack frames. They could be tightened up so that they didn't stretch, and had enough friction that they didn't slide sideways (the reason Hazen had the tacks into the bars). I eventually added a 1/2" thick layer of ensolite closed-cell foam to the top of mine, covered in nylon, and there is absolutely no question that it made the most comfortable and versatile yoke I've ever used by a huge margin. It does take up a bit more room in the middle of the canoe when you're packing around it or stepping over it, but being able to pick the boat up and start walking from any direction when you get to a less than ideal portage landing is a lot handier that one might first think. Also, being able to tilt the whole boat when going up or down a hill by simply sliding it a couple inches forward or backward on your shoulders is very nice. It keeps the ends of the gunwales from bouncing along on the hillside as you walk.

Wilderness (post-Hazen) was using mahogany for gunwales. The inwale was a strip no more than 5/16"-3/8" thick and 1" tall, with an outwale that was about 1.25" wide by maybe 1" tall where it met the hull and tapered on the bottom side to maybe 5/8" at it's outboard edge. Racing canoe designer Howie LaBrant once told me that an inch of outwale is worth an inch of hull depth, or more, when it comes to splash protection in waves. This is something that was clearly visible when out running big lake waves with a loaded canoe. You could actually watch the waves hit the side of the hull, come up the side, then hit the underside of the gunwale and be deflected out away from the hull, rather than come into it - thus the justification for wide outwales, despite the fact that they can be kind of a knuckle-buster until you get used to paddling with them.

Anyway, Hazen, and later Wilderness Boats, were both driving two big #10-#12 wood screws through the gunwales from the outside and into the ends of each fir dowel to hold the bars in place. In the case of Wilderness, this sometimes proved problematic with those wide, tapered mahogany outwales, because these two big screws were taking a lot of wood out of the outwale and mahogany can be fairly brittle. I saw more than one Micmac where the outwales eventually cracked at the screw locations at the end of the bars. I suspect that ash outwales might have held up better, but it would still probably be better to mount the bars using a more typical canoe thwart mounting system, which shouldn't be particularly difficult to figure out.

So, like just about every other aspect of canoe design, there are advantages and trade-offs to be made with any system you choose. However, when I come to a steep, rocky, slimy or excessively long portage head, this is the only yoke I want on my boat.

[Chris Ostlind]

I met this guy, Eric Knudsen, some 10-12 years ago at the Outdoor Retailer Show in Salt Lake City. He was standing out at the edge of the lake for the On-the-water Demo Day portion of the show and had a canoe mounted up on the top of his pack frame. I was intrigued by the looks of the setup and tried it out. This thing works well.

You can check out the system by watching this video clip. http://www.knupac.com/promo.php

Unfortunately, the website is like a ghost town when it comes to product info, etc. I heard that Knudsen sold the biz some time ago, so it looks like the new owner has other priorities. I don't see why an enterprising dude couldn't take an old pack frame out to the shop and modify it to work like the rig shown.

[Todd Bradshaw]

Yes, that idea has been around for at least 40 years. The reason that it never caught on seems to be that a frame pack is often a pretty obnoxious thing to carry in the canoe out on the water compared to a Duluth pack or even most modern internal frame packs.

[Sailor]

I also see the height as a problem when trying to lift the boat off the pack at the end.
That first picture is sort of what I'd do. The more I think of it, the less room there'd be between the bottom of the boat an my head and it's already tight. HMMM. Mabye that firstpicture is the way to do it. I won't have another thward there though. I'd certainly need to be able to turn around and paddle solo since I'm now single. Gabriel's not heavy enough to justify me staying in the stern seat. Yet. One day. I guess the way to go is to have the seat on rails and the regular yoke. I've got one roughed out already. Just need to fine tune it and final fit it. I picked up some stainless bolts to use until I can find some bronze bolts. At least I'll be able to finish the boat and maybe use it if I can't find any soon enough.

[Chris Ostlind]

Well, I think that a framed pack of any kind, external, or internal, is a far cry better than those lumpy, grandpa duluth packs that have been foisted on the canoe community for years. I know why they are the way they are, but I don't think that it is necessarily a great thing compared to what is available from other outdoor disciplines, such as mountaineering. An internal frame pack can be stowed just as conveniently. it's seriously better on the body and I bet that one of these, Knupack style, carrying devices could be fashioned to mount on the structural parts of the pack. So, it's a win-win in both areas. I don't do enough portaging style journeys anymore for this to be a big deal to me, personally, but as a designer, I'm interested in solutions over the full spectrum of canoeing and thought it vaulable enough to bring it before the troops. If you see a neat idea there with this as a source, then I say make it, share it with us and let's haggle some more.

[chris nova]

I was just following along trying to learn something about a topic I know nothing about. Had to google some of what you were talking about which resulted in reading about tumpline solutions where a strap over your head helps bear the weight seemingly with our without involving the paddles to help lash things together.

There's a discussion about it here: http://reflectionsoutdoors.wordpress...s-on-portages/. Maybe this would be a viable option?

[Todd Bradshaw]

You have to be a bit careful with tumplines. If you aren't used to using one on a regular basis they really can do a number on your neck. Trips are no fun when you find that by the second day you can no longer turn your head because your neck is so stiff and sore. I'll stick with my old #3, 28"x30" Duluth or my Paul Bunyan Special 28x30x6 for big loads and a pack basket for the food and hard items, so that they don't get crushed. They've always worked for me and having owned part of a chain of backpacking stores, I always had my pick of just about any pack made. They're also substantially more waterproof than a lot of other pack designs. My gripe with most internal frames was always their height. For backpacking it helps get the weight up higher, but for portaging you can't usually also stick the boat on your shoulders like you can with a Duluth pack. Portage urgency usually depended on the bugs and just how swampy the area was. If the bugs were really bad, we would sometimes even stick one Duluth on our back, another on our front and the boat on our shoulders and get the hell out of there. A pretty miserable experience, but at least it was over as soon as possible. In nicer places we would take our time and use the Voyageur-style "pose" system for long portages - where you take the boat part-way across the portage, leave it, walk back and get a pack and some paddles, rods, tackle or whatever, take that to the boat and drop it there. Then you pick up the boat again and walk to the end, go back for the packs and bring them to the end. It gives you a chance to rest and to actually get to see the woods you're walking through.

18' Micmac in Quetico - double-thwart yoke, #3 duluth aft of yoke, Paul Bunyan model forward of yoke.

[Sailor]

That 18 foot Micmac looks "big". I can't tell if it's the shape of the bow or what but it looks big to me. Looks like it could carry a WHOLE LOT of gear. Two men and two packs (Is there anything else we don't see in there that you didn't mention?) and she still has quite a bit of freeboard. I like her.

[Todd Bradshaw]

I think I can see the pack basket hiding behind the #3 pack. There would also be a couple of tackle boxes, three or four fishing rods in cases, a camera case and a full nylon splash/rain cover in a bag, along with a couple of strait-shaft paddles (we're using a pair of early Camp bent-shafts in the photo and usually carried both types). There is probably an early Lowrance "Green Box" fish locator in there as well. We used it to find the depth for lake trout trolling. I had a couple guys who worked for me who used to guide up there and they loved to cook shore-lunch-type meals. One guy would take about a seven pound laker and poach it in some mixture of margarine, powdered milk, salt and pepper and a little bit of onion, about 30 minutes after it came up from 80 feet down along some cliff. Man, was that good! So every evening we would go out, stick all the lead we had on one line with a copper spoon. The bow paddler would turn around facing the stern and hold the rod while the stern man would paddle along the cliff face where it was over 100' deep at the "shore". At the end of the cliff area, he would hand the rod over and become the paddler and we would head back the other direction. We always had regular camp food with us, but there were plenty of nights when we would have dinner, go fishing and then come back and have dinner again if the catch was good.

It's a big boat and a very dry boat in big waves due to the increased side depth toward the ends (the middle is only about 13.5" deep), yet quite fast and nimble. Standard procedure was to paddle 50 minutes out of each hour and then sit around smoking cigarettes for ten minutes while the others in We-No-Nah/Jensens and Mad Rivers caught up to us. Hands down the best tripping canoe that I have ever paddled.

[Sailor]

You've said that about it before..... I've probably asked but how does she compare to a prospector? If I were to build another canoe it would quite possibly be a prospector but I'm very intrigued by this boat too.... I've heard great things about her and am starting to see her as that mythical perfect tripping canoe. I LOVE the redbird and haven't paddled a prospector so I can't compare that way but I'd love to have a go at both boats to see how they are. How about a canoe trip with a Redbird, a Prospector and a Micmac? Then we can switch boats back and forth to try each out in different conditions? Anybody got a Prospector and a micmac near Halifax?

[Todd Bradshaw]

"Prospector" seems to me to be one of the most over-used terms in canoeing. There are decades worth of builders and designers all claiming that their boat is "true to the shape of the original Prospectors", yet the canoes are not all shaped the same. I don't know who, if anyone, has it right and generally tend to ignore the hype. In general though, I'm very fond of traditional old-style canoe designs - Old Towns, Chestnuts, Peterboroughs, Racines and Morris Canoes, but of those I've paddled, none are as fast, or as seaworthy in big stuff as the 17'x34" and 18'x36"Micmacs and very few can maneuver as well, especially with a load. I'm not a big fan of the 16'x34 Micmac as it always seemed to lack glide compared to the others and I've never tried stretching the 34"beam hull out to 18'. For a while, the guys at Wilderness were stretching the 34" beam Micmac all the way out to 18'6" and using it for wildwater training. They were also building a Pro 327 racing hull (18'6" x 27" at the 3" waterline - a very extreme distance racing boat) and over the ten or twelve mile stretch of whitewater they were running, the stretched Micmacs would finish within a couple minutes of the Pro boats. I would think that in terms of capacity and intended use, the 18'x36" that I used for tripping would maybe be more along the lines of the 18' Chestnut Ogilvie (only the Micmac is about 30 pounds lighter).

[Fitz]

I like a traditional thwart - no sculpting for a yoke, then lash the paddles in so the blades rest on your shoulders. You gotta find a way to carry the paddles away, so this kills two birds with one stone. It is about as comfortable as it can be too.

[Todd Bradshaw]

Tough to do with bent shafts that weigh a pound and a half though

I also kind of like the idea of borrowing some guideboat technology, where the yoke hooks into some blocks under the gunwale when being used and is free to pivot if desired for adjusting the boat's angle on steep hills - though I've never messed around with it. I had a very early Mad River fiberglass version of the carved-style yoke as a center thwart on my first Macelite and later on, one of our paddle companies made them out of wood for a while, but neither ever seemed to have countours that matched my shoulders, so they were pretty uncomfortable. I was about to try carving my own to fit properly when we first picked up the Wilderness Boats dealership and the double bar systems stole the show.

[Fitz]

Yeah, but bent shafts are for hit and switch racers. If you are a tripper, day paddler forget the bent shafts, carve a sweet paddle, and learn a J-stroke etc. Many a day tripper holds a bent shaft backwards anyway!

Portaging doesn't have to be a chore. If you find a system that works for you, great! Enjoy the walk in the woods.

[James Corduan]

Bent shaft paddle? I would probably use it backwards, never even seen one.

[Todd Bradshaw]

Although also used for sit-and-switch-style marathon race paddling (paddling is done on a rapid cadence with short strokes and both paddlers switch sides about every ten strokes to avoid the induced drag of steering strokes - the canoe actually covers distance in a series of linked, shallow S-curves) bent shafts work quite well for any sort of distance flatwater paddling. With a good boat that tracks well there really is no need to be switching sides in a tripping/recreational paddling situation, and a bent shaft works pretty much the same as any other paddle when using C-strokes, J-strokes, draws, diagonal draws, pitch strokes or others, with the possible exception of a pry stroke. The pry (or using a bent-shaft backwards) can be really hard on the blade, and sometimes even break it, as they're reinforced to take stress in the other direction and usually built pretty light.

The idea behind the bent shaft is that the blade is angled forward at the tip. When you stick the blade in the water, the angle causes it to dive forward, lengthening your stroke a little bit. Then as the paddle comes back toward your hip the angled blade remains more vertical, pushing water backward, rather than pulling the boat downward - which theoretically reduces drag a bit. They're usually a fair bit shorter than conventional paddles, with lengths in the 50"-52" range probably the most common. Here is an assortment of old and new, traditional and not. Left to right:
A very old 6' Guide-style maple paddle
An Old Town 8" wide blade ash beavertail from the 1970s that has had the blade reduced to about 5" wide and thinned considerably, so that now it will actually balance properly. Waiting for varnish.
A 6' Old Town spruce paddle from about 1960, 6" wide blade
A 66" Old Town spruce paddle from the early 1970s, 6" blade
Another very old, and beautifully carved maple guide paddle. This one was my usual "spare" when using a bent shaft and was most likely sitting in the bottom of the boat shown above.
and finally the two Camp bent shafts that were in use in the Micmac photo.

[Dave Hadfield]

Well, "throwing" the canoe was a bit of an overstatement. Sure, if you build yourself a boat you're unlikely to toss it onto the rocks. But I too have done a lot of paddling and portaging, much of it on solo trips, in NW Ontario and NE Manitoba, far beyond the road end, and have come to the conclusion that one of the greatest hazards on a trip like that is falling down. Simply falling down with a load on. I know that doesn't sound very threatening, but wet rocks and heavy loads and slimy take-outs and put-ins can make you hurt yourself. And then you have a problem...

Since Todd says the double-yoke is a good rig, then obviously I should give it a whirl. You can't beat someone who's done been there and done it. But so far I've been happy with yokes that I carved to fit my own somewhat bony shoulders.

As for the Prospector discussion, very true. What is and what isn't a Prospector tends to get blurred. My own 17-footer "Prospector" is strip-built from Ted Moore's book, the 16 ft Prospector (and those lines are subject to dispute), but I stretched the end-3-ft each by 6 in, continuing the rocker. Thus it isn't a proper "prospector" at all. Yet it's been a wonderful travelling boat, fast and quite maneuverable with a load still on board. It's a soap-bubble on the water when empty, but a great boat for a 2-week go-somewhere trip.

I too like the Duluth-style canoe packs. They scrunch into the canoe in a way that a hard-frame can't. We all say "less is more", but then generally bring along too much. Most canoe-loads bulk-out before the canoe is overloaded by weight. Soft packs fit better.

As for portaging, it's true about tump-lines. A person in his 50s experimenting with them should definitely start gently. Work up to it. No one wants a back or neck injury in the bush. But once tump-lining becomes familiar, the simplicity and utilty of a simple pack on a strap becomes appealing. And if the carry isn't too long you can throw a tent or some other item on top without trouble. One thing about tump-lines that sometimes gets misunderstood -- the strap doesn't go across your forehead. It goes over the top of your head. The pull is straight down, through all the bones of your neck and back, in as straight a line as you can manage.

In this photo there are 3 soft packs foreward of the thwart, with a wood-stove on top.

[Sailor]

Todd,
I meant the Prospector in Ted's book. I know Prospector is a bit convoluted these days. If anyone has the exact shape of the original I'd love to compare it to Ted's version.

Dave,
Just curious, why did you extend the ends? I extended my Redbird 6" as well. I did it in the middle 6 feet where the gains would mean longer waterline length more volume, buoyancy, and therefore carrying capacity. The extra carrying capacity is mainly why I did it. That and I can't build a boat and not try to "improve" on it. That's what why we build our own isn't it? I kept the same rocker (stations same height as if she were 17'6") so it's naturally a little straighter in the middle of the boat but I think that will not be noticed. I don't even know if you'll notice the extra length or volume. I will paddle next to my dad and brother, 3 strippers together, and we'll compare the boats. Switch back and forth with similar loads in varying conditions. They each built a 17'6" Redbird and filled them with staple holes. We all used the same station molds. I had considered stretching in the ends but decided quickly after that the middle is where I'd get more canoe. The ends, I'd just get a longer pointyer boat. Not to criticize your construction at all, just curious. Plus........ it's my thread to do with as I please isn't it?
Daniel

[Sailor]

Dave,
That's exactly the style of seat I'm working out for my boat. I won't have the thwart there though so once you slide the seat back in the boat(forward I guess since you're now sternman in the bow seat), you'll be able to paddle facing the other direction. Am I missing something else? I know the cross piece will take up some prime room but I can't think of another way to do it. If you have an idea let me know before I start drilling and cutting!

[Sailor]

Todd,
Have you any more pictures of that Micmac? I'd like to see her from different angles, inside etc.

[skuthorp]

Nice collection of paddles Todd. I made myself a bent shaft for marathon paddling but don't haver the boat now. I keep a 6' paddle similar to the LH 3 for use as a steering and stability aide if caught out in a blow in my sailing canoe. Lots of leverage and you can just let the rudder and leeboard alone as you concentrate on staying afloat.

[Art Reinhert]

Instead of suspending the seat you could have it sit on 2 dowels that sit on little shelf blocks that you epoxy to the hull beneath the seat. I'll try to describe, I might have to get you a picture.
Imagine 4 little wood blocks about 2" square, shape the one side to fit the curve of your hull. On top of these blocks will sit a 1" wood dowel, one on each side of the canoe, the dowels sitting in line with the canoe, not across the hull.
These are what your seat will sit on and slide on. Make whatever seat you want [ I like to make one that has a basket weave pattern of small dia. nylon rope. Its more durable than cane, dry, comfortable and pleasing to the eye.] and on the bottom of the seat on each corner put a piece of pvc pipe of a size that just slides over the 1" dowel. The pieces of pvc will be about 1 1/2" long.
Ok, now you have two dowels sitting on the 4 little shelf blocks. Put the seat on, sliding the seats pvc sliders over the dowels [ before you screw on the dowels to the shelf blocks] and then screw down the dowels. Now you have a seat that slides fore and aft when you want and when no weight is on the seat. When you sit on it the friction between the pvc sliders and the dowels is enough to keep it from sliding.
I've done several of these and they work well. Its a clean looking design, very functional and easy to use. I think it is generally stronger than hanging a seat from the gunwhales. It can be easily done for a bow or stern seat or a midships seat for a solo canoe. Depending on the length of your dowels you can make it slide for and aft as much or as little as you want. Its nice be able to shift weight enough to keep the canoe in trim with paddlers of different weights or keep the bow down a bit when paddling in a cross wind
If you need a picture I could get you one later today.

I just saw the picture in post#2 and the ones I make are similar except the dowels sit on 4 small blocks epoxied to the hull. I make the seat a rectangle you can sit either way on. I notice in the picture they have a extra thwart installed above the rear hanger, I'm assuming that is keep the gunwhales from tipping in because of the weight hanging from them.
That would not be needed if using the blocks on the hull method. My tandems only have a center thwart leaving the boat less cluttered and easier to store gear in.
On a solo boat I tilt the seat assembly slightly down in front. It still sits fine but if you decide to kneel with your backside against the seat it is much more comfortable because that front edge of the seat isn't what your butt is against, it more onto the lattice work.

[Sailor]

I think I understand, but a picture is worth a thousand words. I think I want the structural corss bracing of having the seat suspended from the inwales and like the idea that it allows the canoe to flex. If you glue in solid parts to the hull it's self it doesn't allow it to flex as much. If I see it I may like it though. Let's have a picture or two of it.
Daniel

[Art Reinhert]

I'll be able to get pictures later today for you. The way its done should have no impact on flexibility or lack therof.

[Dave Hadfield]

Daniel,

It was 25 years and many bush trips ago that I built that boat, so it's hard to remember exactly, but my rationale for stretching the ends and continuing the rocker was to make the boat faster and more responsive when loaded. I remember considering whether to stretch it in the middle, but I opted for finer ends, thinking the interior volume of a prospector 16 was enough for my purposes anyway.

That worked, and on a down-river trip with lots of wiggling around the rocks, with 2 weeks of gear on board, it's a pleasure to paddle. The cost was tenderness when empty. I was happy with the trade-off (all boats are compromises) then, and still am.

Dave

[Sailor]

Thanks Dave. Just curious. I knew I wanted more carrying capacity having paddled extensively in a standard length redbird for several multiweek trips. I'm itching to see how different my 18' Redbird will be when loaded with gear compared to the 17'6" Redbirds my dad and brother built.

[Chris Ostlind]

"I too like the Duluth-style canoe packs. They scrunch into the canoe in a way that a hard-frame can't. We all say "less is more", but then generally bring along too much. Most canoe-loads bulk-out before the canoe is overloaded by weight. Soft packs fit better."


No argument that an external framed pack makes for a more difficult fit in a curved surface volume, such as the typical canoe. I'm advocating that the tripper, who makes longer portages, and/or frequent portage efforts, will find that the internal frame pack is a better tool. A bit more than forty years ago, internal frame packs started to emerge from the use specific world of high altitude mountaineering for some of the same reasons you state in your comment about fitting better. In this case, the discussion had to do with being able to smush your pack up a long and confining chimney while ascending a testy mountain complete with slippery, wet and ice caked slabs.

External frame packs, or, no frame packs, such as Kletter sacks, were the tool for the day. Kletter bags, which wind-up being in the same collection of stuff in which the Duluth Bags are pinned, offer next to no structural support, nor do they direct the load to the hips, where it can be carried in control. Soft bags typically require the load to be suspended from the shoulders, with the waist belt, if there is one, along for the ride in a gentle attempt to stabilize the movement. The same attributes that allow the soft pack to be pushed around obstacles also means that they are not so good at distributing loads for the specifics of the human body. If you want that soft sack for its formability, then you also get the bag that is the least friendly to the body when it comes to load carrying and that oft-mentioned need for confident stability on uneven terrain.

Mountaineers switched over to internal structure packs a long time ago as the optimal tool for load carrying, stability in tough conditions and the ability to shape conform when it matters the most. Interestingly enough, canoeists, being the diehard traditionalists that they are, have resisted the notion that there is a better tool out there for their needs. I understand the place where one goes to seek comfort in their gear while on an outing. God knows I have some stuff in my quiver that is seriously old-tech and I know that there are things available that will do a better job, are lighter and are cost effective when it comes time to make the transition. It's a bit of a wacky thing for me to have a grok session about my own stuff, especially when I routinely attend the Outdoor Retailer Show held in Salt Lake City every summer. If you walk that show often enough, you wind-up hearing every esoteric argument there is for somebody's new fangled gear idea. Some of the arguments are pretty out there, but the pack thing is not one of them. Millions of users and 40 plus years of development have long ago laid that "yeah but" resistance to rest. Anyway... Maybe it’s my age, perhaps just stubbornness, but I do have the dilemma myself. Fortunately, though, because of my life long involvement with mountain and serious rock climbing, I did make the change regarding this pack question a long time ago and have never regretted the decision.

You guys, of course, can decide for yourselves how that works.

[Todd Bradshaw]

If your intention is to make a portage into a recreational hike, then I can see the internal frame pack as a comfortable possibility. I've certainly used and sold enough of them over the years, starting with the Original Gerry four compartment red ones for their 20 lb. camp and early Rivendells, the Back-X, the TNF packs with the swiveling urethane hip belt, etc. but if your intent is to get across a portage, out of the bugs and swamps and back on the water ASAP, then the fact that you can't carry a boat with an internal frame pack's height and high center of gravity becomes a liability. It may be comfortable walking, but that pack takes a trip across all by itself - and that's why I still favor the Duluth. The idea that folks are still using them just because they're hard-headed traditionalists just isn't accurate. In many cases, they're the best way to get the job done, despite the lack of a high-tech suspension system. They're also, by the way, very often far more waterproof than something made from cordura or ballistic nylon with a lot of seams and zippers all over it.

[Chris Ostlind]

Todd, there must be hundreds of internal frame packs that are not so tall that they are pushing height limits and they function in the very same fashion with structure and proper, ergonomic design. Anything that is placed a good distance from the center of gravity on a human is going to have huge problems in balance, pitching, yawing, etc. You know, like a pendulum style device, such as a canoe, sitting on one's shoulders.

I'm not convinced by the waterproof component of the argument you present. These internal frame packs are tested in tropical, as well as high altitude winter environments. Waterproofing is an important part of the effectiveness of the design. I can't imagine a more dangerous place to be with soaking wet clothing than at altitude where temps can get seriously cold in minutes and the margin for staying alive is as thin as it gets. Do you have the same ideas about shells and pants from someone like Patagonia, because they have zippers, and seams like the packs that, according to you, must be big problems whenever they get out in the serious weather? I can't imagine Yvon Chouinard putting his earned integrity on the line for a product that won't keep the owner dry in ultra nasty conditions in the mountains. This is true for the other manufacturers, as well. The pack makers use the same technology.

[Todd Bradshaw]

Yes, an internal frame pack functions by keeping the weight in close to the center of gravity of the wearer - if it is packed properly - which happens to also be the way to pack any pack, including a Duluth pack. You should always pack the densest, heaviest items high in the pack and close to your back for the best carry and as you get lower and farther away from that spot, the cargo should be getting lighter and less dense. That's just backpacking 101 stuff. However, one way to make this even more effective is to extend the pack and that heavy item zone up above your shoulders and that will generally prohibit you from being able to carry a canoe, which limits your options on a portage. As I said, that pack becomes a trip all by itself and anybody who has actually portaged through canoe country knows that there are a fair number of portages where you REALLY want to make as few trips across as possible due to swamps, bad terrain or bugs.

I'm not convinced by the waterproof component of the argument you present. These internal frame packs are tested in tropical, as well as high altitude winter environments. Waterproofing is an important part of the effectiveness of the design.

Climbing packs don't usually sit in the rain in a pool of water in the bottom of a boat for eight hours straight. Duluth packs often do. Heavy canvas will resist water better than the coating on cordura will and seams on nylon packs are only waterproof if they have been taped on the inside, which very few are. Why do you think Kety made optional coated nylon taffeta raincovers for both their internal and external frame packs? And they know a thing or two about making packs.

I can't imagine a more dangerous place to be with soaking wet clothing than at altitude where temps can get seriously cold in minutes and the margin for staying alive is as thin as it gets.

Statistically, I think you'll find that there are far more hypothermia cases at lower altitudes and warmer temps than you'll find among folks traveling at high altitude.

Do you have the same ideas about shells and pants from someone like Patagonia, because they have zippers, and seams like the packs that, according to you, must be big problems whenever they get out in the serious weather? I can't imagine Yvon Chouinard putting his earned integrity on the line for a product that won't keep the owner dry in ultra nasty conditions in the mountains. This is true for the other manufacturers, as well. The pack makers use the same technology.

Uhhh...... I was a Chouinard/ Black Diamond/Patagonia dealer from Day #1 for about 20 years and even had Yvon Chouinard come to my store to give a seminar once. The seams are all taped inside these garments these days - and until that technology was invented, they leaked like crazy and we ended up refunding about 75% of them, including those from Patagonia. That was the major problem with the first couple generations of Gore Tex and it was so bad that it came close to making the stuff a total joke. We used to say that the best way to stay warm in Gore tex was to pile it up and light it on fire. Chouinard and Gore had a feud going on for quite a while, so Patagonia was using their own coating methods instead and they were no more successful: H2No (highly water-repellant but good breathability) H2Storm (theoretically waterproof and breathable) and SealCote (waterproof, non-breathable for sailing gear). When you start handing out $300 refunds for leaky jackets and then get back a credit for just the $180 wholesale price from the manufacturer and you've paid shipping on the item both ways and interest on it while it was hanging on your rack waiting to sell, it hurts, right in the wallet. Without taped seams, coated nylon leaks and there is no way around it and the seam taping technology that is used to make garments is very difficult to do on the inside of an internal frame pack because you can't get the heating element that bonds the tape to the fabric inside there. So the vast majority don't bother.

As a side note for anybody who actually is canoe-tripping, we always had a small, sealed,totally waterproof rafting bag (Cascade-Designs/Seal-Line, Voyageur or similar) inside our Duluth packs. This contained our sleeping bag, a change of clothes and something like a polar-fleece sweater or wool shirt. This did two things: First it guaranteed that no matter what (rain, waves, capsize etc.) you would always have a dry sleeping bag and a dry change of clothes, and (2) It provided enough flotation that your pack could not sink. This is always a very good idea and worth doing.

[Todd Bradshaw]

Daniel, I don't have any other pictures of that boat. Photography was such an expensive pain in the butt back then that I just didn't take many. Somewhere in my ski closet I still have a copy of a color brochure that Wilderness boats put out about 1974, but multiple searches have turned up empty. If I ever find it, I'll scan it and send it over to the WCHA archives, but no luck so far. I know I didn't throw it away. When I moved up here about 20 years ago I sold that boat to a friend in Illinois and my Hazen Nanaimo strip kayak to another friend. I was moving with five boat trailers, my Old Town Guide and the big fur trade canoe and looking for a place to rent with enough off-street storage that it wouldn't look like the Dukes of Hazard just moved in. He eventually sold it to somebody down south and the last time I heard it was in some kind of museum in the south (why, I have no clue). At the time, I just figured I'd build a new one once I got here, but there always seems to be some other project that takes the spotlight and buying a house built in 1920 really did a number on my boatbuilding plans. I'm always threatening to see if I can build another one, faithful to the originals (sitka spruce, square-edged strips and staples) in less than ten days, which I'm pretty sure I could do (I once had an 18.5' marathon racing boat glassed and ready to sand in three days). The boys at Wilderness could turn out a finished Micmac in 75 man hours. It's on the list of things to do, the question is always when. I'm re-working the fur trade canoe at the moment and when it's done the loft will be clear if nothing on the house breaks first. I'm thinking about trying this one first because it might be fun for poking around and I'd like to do a glued lap boat,


but I can still see a new 18'x36" Micmac in my future because I really miss that boat.

[Sailor]

Well if ever you do an 18'x36" micmac let us know. Do you have station molds or a table of offsets for it?

[James Corduan]

I got a copy of Hazens book The Stripper Guide from Abe books cheap, with plans for the Micmac.

[Sailor]

Perfect, I'll keep an eye out for it then. Thanks

[Chris Ostlind]

Climbing packs don't usually sit in the rain in a pool of water in the bottom of a boat for eight hours straight. Duluth packs often do. Heavy canvas will resist water better than the coating on cordura will and seams on nylon packs are only waterproof if they have been taped on the inside, which very few are. Why do you think Kety made optional coated nylon taffeta raincovers for both their internal and external frame packs? And they know a thing or two about making packs.

Todd, have you ever done much altitude oriented mountaineering? Specifically, where have you been during horrific conditions while ascending steep and mixed terrain that you think that mountaneering participants do not sit, exposed for hours in nasty weather? It's not uncommon to be stuck on a tiny stance with no shelter while engaging a steep, iced cliff face while waiting out a storm so the team can move on with their expedition. Your comment above suggests uninformed speculation. Perhaps you are out of your element here?

Kelty used to be a vanguard company in the outdoors movement that really took-off back in the 70's. Now they aren't a whole lot more than a Mom and Pop style haberdasher catering to car camping episodes that serve as wilderness outings. Sorry man, but even though I like some of their civilian style gear, as it has been shown at the OR, they are not cutting edge any longer, and they haven't been for way more than a decade.

Statistically, I think you'll find that there are far more hypothermia cases at lower altitudes and warmer temps than you'll find among folks traveling at high altitude.

Ya think that maybe this stat is skewed just a bit by the centers of population and at what altitudes they happen to inhabit? I'm enjoying the conversation up to this point, but it would be helpful if you kept the discussion in the same ballpark. I'd love to see stats as they apply to canoeing adventures, what sorts of gear the participants were wearing that may have contributed to the condition and so on. A broad statement such as yours does nothing to reveal any critical thinking on the topic. Further, the folks who do travel in conditions that are extreme, tend to dress themselves better than do those who putz around at, or near, sea level.

Uhhh...... I was a Chouinard/ Black Diamond/Patagonia dealer from Day #1 for about 20 years and even had Yvon Chouinard come to my store to give a seminar once. The seams are all taped inside these garments these days - and until that technology was invented, they leaked like crazy and we ended up refunding about 75% of them, including those from Patagonia...

I'm not going to extend the discussion any longer than is necessary, but I'll simply tell you this: I wear Patagonia gear. I have been at high altitude on some ugly trips and endured dangerous conditions while wearing their stuff. I'm extremely happy with the gear because it has never failed to perform as expected in wildly demanding conditions. The things you are describing just do not happen with anything even close to the regularity you suggest in your comments. Perhaps the knowledge base to which you refer is now outdated and long since superceded by more accurate info?

As a side note: I suppose that one could add several layers of waterproofing inside of their Duluth pack to guarantee a dry sleeping bag when they get to camp. But then, I always had this goofy notion that all the gear you take has to be humped by you... so long ago I made the move to lighter equipment that has high end fabrication and technology as a design and use strategy. Time marches on and so does technology. All of us are a mixture of curmudeonly insistance on the old and comfortable and wild-eyed enthusiasm for that next cool gadget that can make things more interesting. One can choose to use Grandpa packs and old tech if they want. I wish you well in your pursuit and hope to see you out on the trail be it dirt/rock, or water.

[Todd Bradshaw]

Your comment above suggests uninformed speculation. Perhaps you are out of your element here?

As I recall, this thread is about tripping canoes with a sideline going on about what sort of packs work best for Northwoods-style canoe tripping. Sorry, but that's right down my alley - been there, done that on numerous occasions, got the T-shirt and even sold the T-shirts for 20 years. Why you believe that high altitude mountaineering has much to do with the subject escapes me. There is certainly some high altitude gear that adapts well to canoe tripping, but there is also some that does not work as well as the stuff that's been used in canoes for decades.

Don't get me wrong, Patagonia makes some great stuff - but it is hardly the fairy tale that you think it is or was. They have had just as many dismal failures over the years pushing new technologies to the forefront (often prematurely) as anybody in the industry has. The fact that you don't know about them does not mean that they did not, or do not happen and the idea that "everything's fine now and works great" is extremely naive. With a combination of being a dealer all those years and the stuff in my closets, I think I have a pretty good handle on the strengths, performance and weaknesses of Patagonia's line of bad weather clothing (and this batch is just the stuff made for boating - the kind one might use on a canoe trip).

[Sailor]

Subject at hand guys. I'm headed out to the drydock to work on steam bending the other end of my outwales and see what other progress I can make. When I come back I expect that you've made up and shook hands!
And help me figure out how to keep my seat from falling off the rails when I flip my canoe onto my head.

[Todd Bradshaw]

I've seen little brass sheet metal clips screwed to the underside of the seat bar ends to sandwich the rails and do it, but there might be something more elegant out there. Somebody (Lincoln Canoes, I think) also used to notch the rails so that the bars didn't move in use, but varnish on varnish friction on straight rails is probably enough once the paddler sits down.

[James Corduan]

Perfect, I'll keep an eye out for it then. Thanks

Make sure and ask if it has plans, the first one I bought did not.

[Chris Ostlind]

Todd, That stuff shown is old, old, old, old, and old. Go ask Patagonia when was the last time they produced a Cagoule as a manufactured product under their, or the Lotus, brand name.

Please... Bring something fresh to the discussion with pertinent, timely specs, or back away from the "old dude who used to know what is happening" idea and enjoy what you can learn from others. Can I make that any more clear for you? Some of that stuff is pre-Lotus and that relationship dissolved more than eight/ten years ago. Come on, man, I know you are a knowledgable guy in some of these canoe matters but you can't know everything and you certainly have this all wrong. Have some grace and let it go.

Beyond that set of comments, you didn't answer one single question I posed to you about your understanding of mountaineering issues when it comes to gear. Read the post above again and please answer the issues presented. Are you stumped on the topics on which you so generously offered expertise, or what?

You see, Todd, I don't get into heavy discussions about trad sailing rigs, especially for canoes, or the process associated with same when it comes to knowing how they are built, or designed. That's where a guy like you comes to the fore and offers his understanding and I listen with respectful intent. It seems, though, that you don't know very much about mountaineering, technical rock and/or ice climbing and that you are just way out of your depth on the topic when it comes to knowledge of the gear involved, or the scenarios typically encountered. There also seems to be a serious shortage of current techno knowledge on your part when it comes to state of the art backpacks, how they are made and how they are tested before being turned into manufactured proucts. I'm asking that you back away from the keyboard in matters where you have no expertise and let others contribute accordingly. Failing that nicety, I leave you to your own misinformed source of out of date knowledge on the topic and wish you good luck in the eyes of the readers of this forum.

As an aside, once again... Todd, If you would like to be my guest at this year's Outdoor Retailer Show and can get yourself to Salt Lake City with lodging, I'll be happy to obtain a multi-day press credential for you and you can roam the show at your leisure and get up to speed on everything that is out there. That should go a long way to getting your understanding up to date and probably put a smile on your face, as well, when you get to cruise the boating section of the show. Just say when and I'll make it so.

[Todd Bradshaw]

Chris, I don't know what your problem is, but so far other than saying "my mountaineering gear would work better" you have yet to demonstrate that you actually know anything about the topic at hand or have any experience doing it. You don't seem to know much about backpack design and construction and you're not going to get it by going to trade shows. If I ever need a canoe portaged across a high mountain, I'll be sure to call you, but if you ever get the opportunity to do so through the bugs and swamps you have a thing or two to learn. You're right though, it's dumb to argue with somebody who doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground about the subject at hand, and I've done about all of it on this thread that I plan to. We''ll just have to agree to disagree.

[James Corduan]

I wonder if a "Canoeing" thread would be of interest here. We have the Outrigger and Proa thread, maybe we could get one going about canoe designs, building techniques, seats and thwarts, paddles, gear, portaging, ect. Its not like we don't have some experts hanging out here.

[skuthorp]

Judging by the spat here maybe not. BTW I sail a Macgregor decked canoe mostly in the sea, and I wouldn't like to portage that anywhere too far!

[James Corduan]

My current canoe is an older fiberglass one that weighs a ton, or at least feels that way when I have it up on my shoulders. Thinking of decking it in and making a sail rig for it.

[Sailor]

OK, next question guys. I'm trying to figure out an elegant way to execute this sliding bow seat. I've roughed it in and so far this is what I've got:



I'd like to lighten things up a bit. It looks heavy and clunky. I'd like to remove a bit of weight if possible. I'd like some shape to it. It's just some blocky straight chunks of wood. The yoke on the other hand is a symphony of beautiful curves:


Yoke and handles are cherry while the decks are Bird's eye Maple. Just wish I could upload the pictures I have of it.




Hope that worked.
As you can see, plenty of curves. I need the seat setup to match. Any thoughts on how to do it would be appreciated as I'll have to tackle this project soon.
Ordered some SB rod to make bolts since I can't find any long enough to do the job. Hope it's here soon.
Thanks guys,
Daniel

[Dave Hadfield]

Yes, I see what you mean. I think I'd mark where you want a flat mating surface, but everywhere else I'd go at it with a spokeshave, smoothing and rounding. The main cross-piece needs it's thickness only under the rails, where the weight goes. You could put a double-curve in the middle, not particularly for strength, but to look good, since it's in your view as you stern-paddle most of the time.

Dave

[Sailor]

what do you mean by a double curve? A concave curve to the top and bottom edge of it so it's thinnest in the middle and thickest at the ends? or more like a typical thwart shape that's narrowed nearly at each end and widest in the middle? I don't think that would look right if it was on edge like it will be. Or do you mean a curve that is symetrical either side like a reverse of the classic thwart shape? I'm not sure I follow what you're saying I guess.