Body weight range for intermediate skis

Marieski,

I had a person that repairs surfskis locally do it for me, I just traced where the new gunwale line should be.

I am sure that any good local ski repair person could do it in your area too.

Marieski,

It was a 12kg kevlar Evo 1, and I haven't tried the Evo II.

Now in a 14.5kg vacuum glass Swordfish, a smaller boat all round.

I reckon Evos are great for bigger guys.

cheers
LaPerouser

It's quite a difference between a 12kg and a 14.5kg ski in how they handle in choppy conditions when one is looking for stability. If I was in that situation, I too would find the 14.5kg ski more stable, so it's not really a like for like comparison.


The Evo II has also been pulled in at the paddle entry point with large cutaways to accommodate smaller paddlers, as well as provide a catch closer to the center line of the boat, meaning more power and stability for the paddler.

Stew wrote: It's quite a difference between a 12kg and a 14.5kg ski in how they handle in choppy conditions when one is looking for stability. If I was in that situation, I too would find the 14.5kg ski more stable, so it's not really a like for like comparison.

Isn't a 12 kg ski normally Carbon compared to fibreglass so materially going to behave differently, coupled with the lighter weight?

sAsLEX wrote:
Isn't a 12 kg ski normally Carbon compared to fibreglass so materially going to behave differently, coupled with the lighter weight?

Definitely.

subsequently when comparing intermediate 12kg skis the lower volume ski will be more stable for the lighter/average sized person.

Stew,

I may stand corrected on the weight of the the Kevlar Evo, but the heavier ski was a conscious choice considering my bodyweight, skill level, paddling frequency and difficulty handling cross-winds. I've got a mate (known to both of us) who paddles an Evo !!, and to the best of my knowledge he's happy as Larry.

Horses for courses...

cheers

Why not simply ballast a light weight ski in difficult conditions? I assume that ski for ski the heavier version will have its weight evenly distributed throughout via the construction material. Ballasting would therefore provide the advantage of being able to strategically place weight low in a lighter ski to greatest advantage for stability, say sand in socks for eg., which can be discarded enroute should conditions become benign. In short then - isn't it better to get the lightest ski you can afford? Just a thought as I'm new to the sport and this may already be practised.

Gazz wrote: , say sand in socks for eg., which can be discarded enroute should conditions become benign.

I hate sand in my socks, and its quite hard to discard , can still be in my shoes for weeks.

superted wrote: subsequently when comparing intermediate 12kg skis the lower volume ski will be more stable for the lighter/average sized person.

That one is probably more open for debate. For example, I had a lady recently demo an Evo and a Legend, both in 12kg construction. Small and very lean at 58kgs, she found the Legend more stable, and purchased one. That would go against what we would think would be ideal for her.

Personally, I have sometimes found XL K1s to feel more stable than some of their lower volume compatriots, and I'm very light at 78kgs. I think a lot more comes down to our own personal balance in a lot of cases.

LaPerouser wrote: Stew,

I may stand corrected on the weight of the the Kevlar Evo, but the heavier ski was a conscious choice considering my bodyweight, skill level, paddling frequency and difficulty handling cross-winds. I've got a mate (known to both of us) who paddles an Evo !!, and to the best of my knowledge he's happy as Larry.

Horses for courses...

cheers

Hi LaPerouser,

I'm guessing you must be paddling down Malabar/Botany direction with that handle. Not sure who you are, but certainly sounds like we've crossed paths on the water!

I hope you didn't take my post as anything other than an observation. I was just pointing out that the difference in weight between those two skis will result in quite significant handling characteristics on the water.

I have many customers who are light, and have favoured heavier skis so they don't get blown around too much in the wind, and track better in choppy waters. With your body weight, I think you made a really good choice. Yes, it might be a bit heavier to lift on and off the roof racks and storage racks, but it can mean a more enjoyable paddle on rough days, and I think that trade off is worth it.

I actually paddle a 15kg Uno Max myself, and love how it handles chop, so I can see how you would experience the same.


Cheers.

Stew wrote: That one is probably more open for debate. For example, I had a lady recently demo an Evo and a Legend, both in 12kg construction. Small and very lean at 58kgs, she found the Legend more stable, and purchased one.

For those two skis I suppose a demo in flatwater could arrive at that conclusion. but demo both those skis in side chop and you would be hard pressed to find someone that would agree with her.

I have had two friends move from V10 Sports performance to the Swordfish vac glass (which on paper should be tippier) and all have found that swordy more planted and stable because of its lower volume. Weight ranges 70-90kg.

Gazz, I must admit I have wondered the same thing about ballast. Wouldnt it be great to buy a light ski that you can add ballast to while you improve your skills or when you paddle in more trying conditions. When I bought my SES Excel I was unsure if I should buy the Advantage which is heavier and probably less of a challenge. I decided on the lighter layup so that I didn't risk wishing in 6 months that I had bought the lighter ski. If I could add ballast to the lighter ski I would have the best of both worlds.

There could be a whole new thread here on "Which layup".

Midlifecrisis wrote: Gazz, I must admit I have wondered the same thing about ballast.

Remove the bung, insert a few liters of water and you have some nice ballast right at the bottom of the ski....

Not quite the same, the water moves around making the ski less stable.

Physio wrote:

Gazz wrote: , say sand in socks for eg., which can be discarded enroute should conditions become benign.

I hate sand in my socks, and its quite hard to discard , can still be in my shoes for weeks.

Hehe.

Gazz wrote: Why not simply ballast a light weight ski in difficult conditions? I assume that ski for ski the heavier version will have its weight evenly distributed throughout via the construction material. Ballasting would therefore provide the advantage of being able to strategically place weight low in a lighter ski to greatest advantage for stability, say sand in socks for eg., which can be discarded enroute should conditions become benign. In short then - isn't it better to get the lightest ski you can afford? Just a thought as I'm new to the sport and this may already be practised.

I actually gave the ballasting some serious thought a year or so ago ( prompted by the V10 elite which was way twitchier than the V10, because of weight and possibly carbon, but by then too late, I'd already bought it; does anybody find this really really funny?)and it's harder than it sounds. To get any decent effect I thought I'd need at least 5 kilos. The problems are then what material to use, where to put it and how to secure. The only thing compact enough for it's mass is lead and that's a kind of hard material to have bumping about in your carbon boat. There also is literally no room, except in front of the footplate and that's way too far forward. I then had the brilliant idea of using my scuba weight belt. At the risk of losing any credibility I have on this site, I have to reveal that I actually went out on the water, but did manage to remember BEFORE falling out, that the belt would make a remount impossible, if not actually sinking me.

I can report however, that both twitchiness and secondary stability were noticeably improved. My practical use of this information is not to buy light boats, much as they are delightful to carry around on land. And the Elite did accelerate well!

Marieski wrote: The only thing compact enough for it's mass is lead and that's a kind of hard material to have bumping about in your carbon boat. There also is literally no room, except in front of the footplate and that's way too far forward.

Lead shot in a cloth/canvas bag is relatively soft yet retains the mass to volume required.

Gave thought to that. It is still too large a volume to stow in the bottom of the ski. Sit in your ski then think about where you'd put it. Without obstructing your legs.

Perhaps the easiest temporary solution is to block the venturi.

Obviously this doesn't necessarily put weight in the correct place, but it is quick and with a string attached to the plug, easy to remove.

I suggest it will provide enough information to consider pursuing this idea.

I have certainly found that our Avon Descent team Finn Molokai is more stable for me when there is some water in the cockpit.