Impact of Heeling - Canoe Design

[NikonF5user]

Curiosity question - everyone knows the advantage of having a boat with a fair amount of uniform rocker for maneuvering in narrow creeks. But heeling should hypothetically lift the stems out of the water a bit - so the question is whether boats designed with a slight amount of differential rocker like the new Cirrus 14.6 from Swift or the Yellowstone Solo from Bell / Redfeather - boats that should hypothetically be a bit less maneuverable / straighter tracking than say a WildFIRE or Dragonfly - have any difference in maneuverability when heeled (and how much heeling is needed to see any real impact anyway)?

As indicated above, it's just a curiosity question - I think it would be fun to try to design a hull that has differential rocker but the sides are intentionally built to maximize free spin when heeled, negating the negative impact the differential rocker would have on maneuverability when paddled without any lean. Of course, I am so ignorant of watercraft design, this may be what has always been done anyway!

 

[lowangle al]

I've never paddled any of the boats you mentioned or any boat with differential rocker for that matter, but being opinionated I'll offer an opinion.

I like a bow light trim, and with that trim I think I am creating differential rocker. The bow is free to turn, while the deeper stern will help keep your boat on track. When your stern is deeper in the water it acts like a rudder. It can keep you going straight when you're not leaning and it will help you turn towards the side you're leaning to when heeled over. The deeper the stern, the more rudder effect you will get, whether leaned or not. This is what enables me to paddle from the stern seat without getting blown around.

There are reasons for different hull shape designs. I think the ultimate reason, generally speaking, is to get your hull to do a lot of the work for you. In this case it can either help you go straight or help you turn, depending on your lean. I'm thinking that differential rocker will create some of this effect while maintaining a more flat trim.

 

[NikonF5user]

I think I didn't word my original post well - what I was trying to ask is whether boats like the Cirrus and YS solo would be equally as maneuverable as a WildFIRE when heeled - does the heel remove the straight-tracking enough to make the heeled Cirrus equal in maneuverability to a WildFIRE?

 

[memaquay]

I seem to recall John Winters saying that his asymmetrical canoes tracked best when there was enough weight in the stern to make it squat down a little. I have built and paddled almost all of his designs, and have routinely paddled the Osprey and the Raven heeled, both in tripping and non tripping situations. I haven't paddled the hulls you discuss, but I am going to assume that canoes with similar features will act in similar fashions.

I built the Barracuda, which was a performance type hull with very little rocker. Heeling it would have been a fairly frightening endeavour, although I'm sure there are some paddlers who could do it. I suppose someone who could heel it would notice a difference, but at 17 feet long, and the precarious nature of heeling it, I think the design characteristics would cancel out most of the advantages.

The Osprey was a good all around asymmetrical design with moderate rocker. It turned well, tracked well, did most things one would want of a canoe. I still heeled it on a fairly regular basis, but I'm not sure if it was out of habit or if performance was enhanced. I'm not one of those analytical fellas, I just tend to do what feels right.

The Raven is a highly rockered asymmetrical design, and quite a beast for a solo canoe. It is quite loose in the stays, and responds very well to directional strokes. I usually heeled it on straight stretches, as the hull actually tracked better in that position.

So to try to answer your question....I'm not sure heeling an asymmetrical canoe will provide you with more maneuverability. When I think back, I usually did it on straight stretches for increased tracking ability. I think on tight twisty little streams, paddle technique might be of more importance. Also, trying to reach a neutral balance in an asymmetrical canoe to lift the stern a bit might be more effective than heeling, hence the sliding seat found in some of these canoes.

 

[lowangle al]

I usually heeled it on straight stretches, as the hull actually tracked better in that position.

If you were using one side correction strokes heeling can create a carve which offsets yaw by turning towards your paddle side. No heel and no carve equals more correction in your stroke.

 

[Gamma1214]

Not to ignore your Cirrus vs WildFIRE inquiry but, having paddled neither, I'll help kill time until someone knowledgeable strays past...

I have to agree that what mem & al say above makes sense.

I built my Raven with the seat set rearward & contoured all the way to the gunwales so it would just naturally heel the canoe as I moved toward the paddle side. I was really surprised by how easily the hull tracked with single sided correction strokes and it makes sense that it might be the result of a deeper stern and the carving effect that al lauds. (I can easily see how mem paddles it all day without switching sides)

It, likewise, makes sense that seat placement / trim would play more of a role in altering handling characteristics... I'm really hopeful that someone knowledgeable in hydrodynamics or experienced with both hulls can chime in. Otherwise, we may have to get NikonF5user to buy (or, at least, paddle) both to satisfy our curiosity.

 

[NikonF5user]

It, likewise, makes sense that seat placement / trim would play more of a role in altering handling characteristics... I'm really hopeful that someone knowledgeable in hydrodynamics or experienced with both hulls can chime in. Otherwise, we may have to get NikonF5user to buy (or, at least, paddle) both to satisfy our curiosity.

I am HUGE fan of the WildFIRE - and would never debate the need to buy one!

I do want to paddle the Cirrus, because why not! Plus it's a Swift and a Yost design, both of which I love.

 

[kona]

I have a royalex YS and a composite wildfire. Im comfortable heeling both and do, much of the time. The YS is maneuverable but less so, even when heeled appreciably. This is particularly evident in eddy turns and upstream facing rock garden play.

 

[scoutergriz]

My main boat is a Swift Kippawa, another Winters design, and has a fair bit of differential rocker, but to be honest leaning it varies little from my old beater Scott Echo, which is symmetrical.The main difference is the wind load, but that could be a factor of the longer hull. the biggest thing I notice is how FAR I can lean the two, the scott doesn't like less than 3-4" of freeboard on the low side, while the kip can be leaned over to the point that wavelets cause it to ship water. the other thing is that the kip can spin on a dime and carve incredibly tight turns when leaned hard where the scott feels more like paddling a bathtub in a lean. both track fairly well leaned...

 

[tketcham]

I don't think that a half inch of rocker difference will affect heeled maneuvers all that much with the Cirrus (2.5/2.0 inches), especially if you pitch the canoe forward a bit to release the stern. I've followed paddlers using a the Bell Yellowstone, with an inch of rocker difference (2.5/1.5 inches), and they were maneuvering through Pine Barrens creeks as well as paddlers with boats with symmetrical rocker. As you mentioned, there's more to maneuverability than just rocker, the overall hull shape affects performance as much or more than rocker alone. So the Cirrus, designed for moving water, should turn well even without nailing it to the rail.

 

[gumpus]

Fun topic. I've owned a composite Yellowstone and Wildfire and agree with kona that the Wildfire is significantly more maneuverable. Yes you can lean a Yellowstone to the rail and spin it like a top but Wildfire will be more stable and spin faster. The Yellowstone did have better cruising efficiency.

On other boats I think it varies. My Merlin II and Keewaydin 15 have identical differential rocker specs and both are 15' but the extra volume of the Kee15 makes it much more maneuverable when leaned where the broad shoulders help lift the ends. Merlin II is no fun to freestyle and not much fun for spontaneous eddy turns but Kee15 is decent...much better.

I think my Swift Osprey (pic) may be my all time favorite solos because at 15' with differential rocker it cruises noticeably better than a WF which I value for upstream paddling yet it's an extremely maneuverable and playful boat that's very close to a WF for forward maneuvers...Osprey has harder chines and less secondary stability so it's happy to let you lean as far as you want any time. For super swift current a Fire boat is hard to beat.

I think the load in the boat can impact the answer too.

 

[Marc Ornstein]

I don't think that a half inch of rocker difference will affect heeled maneuvers all that much with the Cirrus (2.5/2.0 inches), especially if you pitch the canoe forward a bit to release the stern. I've followed paddlers using a the Bell Yellowstone, with an inch of rocker difference (2.5/1.5 inches), and they were maneuvering through Pine Barrens creeks as well as paddlers with boats with symmetrical rocker. As you mentioned, there's more to maneuverability than just rocker, the overall hull shape affects performance as much or more than rocker alone. So the Cirrus, designed for moving water, should turn well even without nailing it to the rail.

tketcham has it right. Heel is one factor but equally important is pitch. Canoes steer, primarily from the stern. Pitching the bow down (by shifting weight forward onto the paddler's knees) lifts (and frees) the stern while pinning the bow. Combined with some heel, almost any hull can be coaxed to turn. A bit of rocker is helpful, mostly in that i makes it easier to pitch the hull. If the combined pitch and heel raise the stern free of the water, asymmetry isn't a huge factor.

Personally, I prefer symmetrical hulls with modest rocker. They are predictable, whether paddling forward or in reverse. A well designed hull will, if paddled correctly, track easily, but will also turn easily with only moderate heel and or pitch.

As to the issue of heeling into (toward) the turn or away from it, the answer is,"it depends". All things being equal, the carving effect gained by heeling away from the turn is an advantage. As mentioned above, heeling away from the paddling side, when traveling straight ahead can reduce the need for corrective (J) strokes. When on a narrow stream, other factors come into play. Most folks feel more stable, heeling into the turn. Heeling to the offside can be unnerving. With practice, it becomes less so. Then there is the "tripping" factor, as in tripping over the paddle if the tip gets caught on the bottom or an obstruction. When heeled into the turn (an axle), if the the paddle tip catches on an underwater gremlin, there's a good chance of launching yourself out of the boat. Having a loos grip hand can minimize that risk. If heeled away from the turn (a post), if the paddle tip grabs on the bottom, more than likely you'll fall back into the boat, perhaps looking a bit clumsy, but none the less dry. Also, looking ahead, at the next twist in the river, what's your next move likely to be? Not having to switch heels, may be an advantage. In tight, twisty streams, such as we find in the NJ Pine Barrens, it helps to be looking two turns ahead, assuming the view is clear that far.