Your #1 source for kayaking and canoeing information.               FREE Newsletter!
my Profile

Advice, Suggestions and General Help New Topic Printer Friendly Version

  I don't buy it either
  Posted by: guideboatguy on Mar-23-13 4:35 PM (EST)

-- Last Updated: Mar-23-13 6:05 PM EST --

When swamped in flatwater, with both the pack and the hull buoyed by water, there won't be any way to create the kind of stress on the tie-downs that would be worth a second thought. One example to illustrate this is a scenario that would be far worse than anything you could do in the water, and that's to suspend the canoe upside-down in the air while the pack remains tied to the floor. For a 45-pound pack attached to four anchor points (four is a likely number since that's what you need if you really want the pack to "stay put" while manhandling the boat up and down the riverbank or over beaver dams), and with the anchor points positioned so that the ropes are relatively vertical in the clear space between the edges of the pack and the floor, there would be only 11.3 pounds of tension applied to each tie-down. You could make the example worse and turn the boat on its side so that the ropes are now oriented in the worst-possible direction and the tension on them increases greatly. I don't want to mess with figuring out the tension, but having seen similar situations I think you could get by with kite string instead of rope, so once again I can't believe there'd be enough pull on each anchor point to endanger the hull. We aren't using boats made of egg shells. In fact, most of us probably don't even bat an eye if our 220-pound buddy decides to use our overturned hull as a chair, and that's far greater strain than the worst-case situation used as examples here (artificial, non-buoyant situations).

Oh, now I see Mrmanners' answer to Clarion. Like him, I thought "forget the pack" was a way of saying that attaching it would be too stressful on the hull and it shouldn't be attempted, just like I thought mrmanners' reasons for NOT using the stiff parts of the hull (which I only suggested using to eliminate the unavoidable floppiness that you'd get anywhere else) were that they were damage-prone. I think the most important point which I tried several times to make was ignored until just now, and that's that just because someone wants to make use of one part of a structure that is stiffer than another doesn't mean one intends to apply a totally unrealistic load.

 Great Products from the Buyers' Guide:

Pro Coolers

Sport Cases (Electronics)

Bug Shelters

PFD's (Life Jackets)

Women's PFDs

Table of Contents


Follow us on:
Free Newsletter | About Us | Site Map | Advertising Info | Contact Us


©2015 Inc.