What would you like to see design-wise ?

Interesting thread, many paddlers pimp their skis with various bits and pieces - one thing that I find really helpful is a wave deflector.

This helps the normally badly draining cockpit do its job a bit better (15 kgs of water is a mission to accelerate!)

A dedicated drink bottle & holder similar to the Fenn system.

On a V12 with the foot plate forward you have trouble fitting in a drink bladder with over about 1 1/2lts of water in it. With a properly shaped bottle I am sure you could fit a 3 lt plus moulded bottle on the stepped bulkhead forward of the foot plate retained by velcro or similar.

I believe "mandating" anything is global-speak for killing individuality. Last July, while choosing my V12 from three E-V12-U’s at Epic’s headquarters located in Charleston, SC, I had the choice of either two recent-run v12’s with foam stringers, or a previous-run model with a honeycomb/glass stringer. I chose the later. After viewing the foam stringers through the drain/vent hole, I was not impressed by the probable flexibility of the stringer. I could easily poke dimples into it with a pencil eraser.

Is it possible for a boat to burst into pieces? Anything is possible. The foam-stringer boats weighed three pounds heavier than the honeycomb-stringer boat. To me, the prospect of a negligable amount of added safety was not worth the added weight and less longitudinal stiffness (less performance).

Yeah, let’s mandate and add all sorts of gimmicks and gizmos into the boats just so that we feel a little safer, possibly so much so that we don’t do regular inspections and maintenance ‘cause they’re “so damned safe!” Playing in any large body of water is a risky proposition. Let’s not dumb it down so much that anyone can “feel safe to play out there,” get hurt or worse, and give paddling additional negative connotations. I believe that the added challenges to master the typical high performance racing skis allowed enough time and hurdles to teach the paddler what kind of conditions he/she should not venture out into. The geometry was the safety feature in itself because a paddler needed a lot of skill and experience to even begin to think about venturing out into heavier conditions. Now with the advent of skis that are dumbed down, anybody can think that heavy conditions are no problem. I bet that we will be hearing of more “surfski” deaths in the media as a result. Then likely, the knee-jerk politicians will “mandate” equipment upgrades that will destroy the whole high-performance surfski design and experience. Just wonderful. In ten years time, we may look back and ask, “ Wow, those old skis were wonderful… light, fast, simple, and cheap! What happened?!?”
A little fear and forethought before venturing out is a good thing. Let’s keep it that way a little while longer. I vote to keep the high-performance skis simple, vice-free, light, fast and challenging, all at a reasonable price to produce and purchase. Damn the safety-mongers!

..hmmmm..someone has been sucking down gel paks with their coffee I see. Maybe I am taking your post wrong - but I don't recall seeing anyone "mandating" anything in this thread, Doug. I may be wrong (as I am so new to this) - but this list of "would like to see" items seems pretty useful as a way to get not only paddlers, but also ski designers good insight to shortcomings in gear. I am sure there were Inuit kayak builders who thought waterproof bulkheads and hatches, mounted compasses,and neoprene sprayskirts were a stupid and dangerous idea too.. Just sayin'...

CyberSki... you may have missed this post from Robin:"Just a note on the foam/floatation. In the past, all skis had a polystyrene stringer - in fact they had to, under surf lifesaving regulations. I'd like to see this mandated for all skis." This was what I was referring to, as well as other thoughts of mandations in other threads from our most illustrious forum sponsor (with all due respects!).

I haven't seen a mod/feature in this thread that couldn't be added by anybody with some smallboat building experience.

The cutaway at the back of the cockpit would stretch my skills and knowledge but doable.

BoofHead: very true. But more complexity adds more weight, adds structural complications that may require more material. The cut-out for the cockpit is a big structural inefficiency in itself. Yet required. Complicate the relatively simple designs now manufactured, and you create a heavier unit. The hump itself helps stabilize the hull and deck structures if it is not built too low. I would love to see the hump disappear almost entirely, yet structurally it is required unless you revert back to the geometry of a kayak. The sloping seat back is do-able, at the cost of more material to strengthen a structure that is now compromised. How are you at FEA (finite element analysis)? Keeping a structure such as a ski in one piece with the anticipated loads with a light overall weight is a good trick.
Just being the Devil’s advocate, I suppose. It’s a nasty job.

G'Day Doug. Agree with everythingyou have said and had most of it in my post before deleting. Was also playing devils advocate.
You are spot on though, many mods do come at a price and these craft are incredibly fragile. Weight being the obvious con but loss of structural integrity is the most important concern.
As mentioned the hump is required for structural integrity but also verrey important for minimising volume and keeping wat away from bum area.
Also provides a perfect pplace for storage.
'Ill be adding a hatch for a hydration bladder in mine.
Cheers

Damn the safety-mongers!

I think everyone knows where I'm coming from - I love doing big downwinds but also exercise the "fear and forethought" that you refer to. I've been in dicy situations and had personally to call on the services of our NSRI search and rescue people a couple of times (happily for other people, not for myself) and maybe I'm a little older and less bold than some others.

I agree that we don't want to dumb and numb skis down to ridiculous levels, but hey, there are some basics that seem sensible to me. Not having a ski sink under you seems sensible. And that's really the only thing (apart from PFDs) that I've ever (I think) said should be actually mandated. Whether that's achieved by having a foam stringer or some other lighter, and more innovative method, who cares. I don't want my ski to sink, that's all. From personal experience I know that searching for a ski is far easier than searching for a swimmer.

The leash point thing - debatable. As I've said many times before - leashes are sensible if you're going offshore, but they can hurt you if you're still attached to your ski when you go through the surf zone. I lost a ski in surf - and was grateful that my leg leash broke, otherwise my leg might have broken! Ideally the leash should be strong enough that it doesn't break if you come off out at sea, but weak enough that if you forget to take it off when you go through the surf that it breaks rather than you. The reason I'd like to see leash points is just that it's more convenient than using the footstrap which otherwise has worked for me for years.

PFDs? Let's not start that debate again. They're compulsory here in SA when racing and I'm in the camp that is in favour of that. Some people disagree.

For the rest - lightness, cut-outs, humps, volume, bottle holders, etc, etc, really just individual choice and preference. This thread asks what you'd like to see...

So - really - call me a safety monger if you will, but when it comes to safety I'm really only after sensible basics and the last thing I'd want is to compromise the sport by forcing builders to create safety pods instead of the most radical paddling devices on the planet!

Surf Life Saving Australia (SLSA) has a few mandated rules for safety .. .03/m3 of positive bouyancy , both ends of the ski (and rudder)must have a 50mm radius so they cannot get into your eye socket ,the footstraps must be a quick release type and no sharp protruberances anywhere . I personally have no issues with any of these things . There are other design rules (Length ,Width and an 18kg min weight rule) but I do not consider them "safety"

My list:

- Hand grips on either side of the boats at the balance point, similiar to a lot of the slsc racing mals have. They work beautifully;

- key/phone glove box like my old XT.

- leash mount point;

- micro adjustable foot board, up and down, back and forward; angles;

- tool free adjustment of rudder cables; (Fenn!)

- fail safe rudder;

- weed guard;

- rudder sets (options);

emm that will do for now.

Kneewall49 wrote: My list:

- Hand grips on either side of the boats at the balance point, similiar to a lot of the slsc racing mals have. They work beautifully;

- key/phone glove box like my old XT.

- leash mount point;

- micro adjustable foot board, up and down, back and forward; angles;

- tool free adjustment of rudder cables; (Fenn!)

- fail safe rudder;

- weed guard;

- rudder sets (options);

emm that will do for now.

From a Think Kayak perspective:



- leash mount point - CHECK

- micro adjustable foot board, up and down, back and forward; angles - Micro adjustment forward and back, working on the others

- tool free adjustment of rudder cables; (Fenn!) - CHECK

- fail safe rudder; - Like to think ours are good, but is any system 100% fail safe?

- weed guard - CHECK

- rudder sets (options); - CHECK

Handle recesses wouldn't be a bad idea, worth looking into.

Stew, I think they would be a very welcome addition especially for the girls, who seem to not like the shoulder carry technique. They could be moulded in or retro fitted.