I'm not at all cranky. I'm human, former glands and all. I just don't appreciate a poster who seems to feel the need to raise what sound like personal resentments and completely irrelevant quotes and references to old threads about photography and axes. What the heck is the topical point of doing that?
I come on these forums mainly to share my experience, give un-self-interested advice to newbies, and help others with internet research that I may have more time to do. Occasionally, I try to offer some humor. I entered this thread simply to give a few thoughts to Bob based on the manufacturer's own specs, description and photos. I've been assuming from from recent posts of his that Bob is thinking about a w/c canoe for solo tripping.
Okay, I don't write every sentence perfectly. Let me make one thing clear. I have no negative views on w/c canoes in general. I think they are beautiful, and sincerely admire people who have the skills to build, maintain and repair them. Many, many times on this very forum, and it's predecessor, I have stated my lust for a Stewart River w/c canoe, especially the Ami. I'd also like a stripper.
I do have many opinions on canoes and tripping in them. One is that I, like thousands and thousands of other paddlers, like light canoes. I don't want to lift up heavy honker hulls, especially as I age. Therefore, I don't generally advise a heavy canoe for portage-type tripping unless a heavy hull is all the buyer can afford. I don't care what the heavy material is -- plastic, aluminum, wood. If it's a heavy hull, it's not desirable much less essential to me for portage tripping.
That was the entire context of the sentence of mine that you keep obsessing on, Robin, not some universal prejudice against w/c that infects my advice. On the other hand, I'd certainly like to paddle a w/c canoe on a non-portage lake or river trip.
YC, using yourself as an example can be flawed exercise. I believe Bob is about 6-4. You are a short woman. What hull fits one person for tripping doesn't fit another, especially when people vary a lot it the amount of equipment they haul.
The specs of a canoe can tell you its volume, and its volume will largely determine its draft. Draft plus depth determine freeboard. This discussion about optical illusions in the bathing beauty picture is a bunch of irrelevant hooey. The Wisp is
obviously not a tripping canoe for a 6-4 person with 300 pounds of load. YC herself, who has paddled the Wisp, has already confirmed in her first post that the freeboard with 300 pounds would be "insufficient".
As for the Willow, I simply pointed out to Bob that the manufacturer says it's for "light tripping". I'm sure it could be fine for heavily loaded trips that are solely on glass.
The Chum specs are interesting. Robin, I've never seen a Chum in person and I certainly believe your measurements. The measurement I quoted was from
this Chestnut source. You'll see that two Chums are listed: one before 1967, which is 15x32x12, and the other after 1967, which is 15x34x12.5. Since you said you had 12+ depth, I figured you had the post-1967 model that was wider. The chart also seems to say that the pre- and post-1967 Chums had different width ribs.
Fragility is a legitimate concern, especially when one is far away from civilization. I once saw a picture of a Chum broken and buckled around a mid-river rock in a class 1 rapid. Splinter city. Bill Mason's old videos of wooden Prospectors and Pals aside, I'd advise Royalex for whitewater tripping. I think we have about 10 days left to get some.