Croatian Travel Guide | Bass Fishing Techniques | Ice Fishing Tips
Articles Directory
Author Login Write for Us View Authors Contact Us Syndicate Site Map
Home : Articles

Categories
Search


Advanced Search
Other Sites
Horse Articles
Refrigeration articles
House surveys
Climbing info
Looking for a Puppy?
free webmasters directory
Seo website directory
 »  Home  »  Boat Design  »  Canoe Design
 »  Home  »  Canoes  »  Canoe Design
Canoe Design
By John Holtrop | Published  01/16/2006 | Boat Design , Canoes | Rating:
John Holtrop
My engineering background is rock solid, my artistic ability is what it is. I have built boats using wood strips, stitch and glue techniques, and molded fiberglass. Some have been better than others, but they all floated without breaking! I select a building process assuming an inexperienced builder, having few tools, who wants the process to be simple and progress to be fast. Visit my site @ http://www.johnsboatstuff.com 

View all articles by John Holtrop
Page 2
The results from these programs are summarized in table 1.

 

CANOE DESIGN

 

 

#1, flat, no rocker

#2, flat, raised ends

#3, slight rocker

#4, max rocker

STABILITY

       

maximum beam (in.)

34.5

34.5

34.4

34.7

waterline beam (in.)

32.2

32.2

31.0

31.8

max. righting moment (ft.lbs./deg.)

77/20

82/20

65/20

13/10

midships sectional area (sq. in.)

99

102

110

141

moment to trim bow 1 in. (ft.lbs.)

95

95

93

62

maximum draft (in.)

3.6

3.7

4.7

6.4

MANEUVERABILITY

       

lateral area (sq. ft.)

5.3

3.9

4.1

5.1

moment of inertia (ft^4)

72

63

56

49

PERFORMANCE

       

weight to increase draft 1 in. (lbs)

144

145

140

115

wetted surface area (sq. ft.)

32

29

28

24

total drag force, at 4.1 knots (lbs)

7.7

7.5

6.9

6.5

TABLE 1

 

    The results from a study like this never yield absolute answers. They can identify trends, however, and allow for informed comparisons between similar canoes (don't try to predict kayak performance with this data). My conclusions are:

STABILITY: Designs 1&2 are very stable, with #2 having a slight edge (I have no idea why). #3 has 20% less stability, and would require some attention and a higher skill level. #4 is close to unstable, and would be a real handful to control. Stability reduces with increased rocker, as the underbody begins to take the shape of a "ball". Trim is effected in much the same way. The first three are all similar with respect to trim moments and weights, and should not be too sensitive to load changes. #4 is far more sensitive, since its flotation is concentrated in the center of the canoe. It appears that some rocker can be tolerated, but anything extreme would have poor stability and load carrying characteristics.

MANEUVERABILITY: Raising the ends of a flat, no rocker design (#2) reduces the moment of inertia (turn resistance) by 9%. Adding a slight rocker (#3) reduced it by 23%, which should not be a problem for an experienced paddler. As expected, #4 has the lowest turn resistance, and would be difficult to keep in a straight line. As a second thought, I added a 4"x8" skeg to the back of #4, and it brought the moment of inertia back up to 63. No real surprises here, except that a slight amount of rocker seems to help turn performance a lot more than raised ends. Moving water with the ends of the canoe takes a lot of effort!

PERFORMANCE: As the amount of rocker increases, the cross sectional area increases, but wave drag is reduced. This sounds backwards. Pushing a larger area through the water should result in more drag (paddles work that way, right?). Wrong. Wave drag on a canoe hull is more sensitive to how "sharp" the waterlines are than it is to cross sectional area. Even though the midships cross sectional area of #4 is 42% more than #1, its predicted drag is 16 % LESS. Canoes #1&2 push the water apart quickly, and pay a drag penalty. Rocker takes volume out of the ends of the boat, which tends to sharpen the waterlines. Sharp, fine ends are common in racing designs, but it's interesting that even a slight amount, like #3, results in 11% less drag than #1, and 9% less than #2. This amount of reduced drag would be very noticeable after a few hours of hard paddling.

    Like I mentioned earlier, canoe design is more art then science. No one has a "perfect" design, or knows all the answers. You can use the general conclusions from this article to help your judgement, but always try the canoe out on the water, configured the way your most likely to use it. Don't be reluctant to try one that's a "little" different! My next canoe will be similar to #3, but just a tad asymmetric. Not because the computer says its good, I just like the way it looks!


How would you rate the quality of this article?
1 2 3 4 5
Poor Excellent
Add comment
Comments