: A few people here have already mentioned it in passing, but to emphasize the
: point, don't make Putz kayak if you wish to use it as an example of a
: traditional kayak or for space. It uses a completely different structural
: approach from traditional kayaks in both the frame(western or european)
: and the skin. It just looks like a skin kayak. Absolutely no good for your
: history class but ok for woodworking or chem. if you use any for the skin
: coating.

What? While I'll agree with you on the "traditional" bit, the small space accusations are bunk. The design is flexible enough that it can be modified to whatever is required. Trust me, I have size 14 feet and have been able to easily get around this in the construction. As for the trestle buisness, well it's simply not a problem. A bit overbuilt perhaps, but not a space consideration.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but from what I've seen and read about "traditional" boats indicates they were / are pretty minimalistic in design. i.e. the beams are narrow - just a finger width or two wider than the paddler's hips, the decks are low to very low almost at the water line to reduce wind problems, Not a lot of storage in the boat - most things kept on the deck. Doesn't bring to mind a craft with a roomy interior for my (or anyone elses) feet :-)

BTW: The Putz craft does have a history. It would make a great story on the industrial intepretation of a native design. I don't think those trestles came from no where. The original Skeene (sp?) design dates to the 20's I believe and engineering concepts such as trestles were everywhere during that period, e.g. buildings, supports, bridges, etc. I find it interesting that the european/western culture took a simple "built from the environment" design and recreated it into a somewhat heavy handed industrial one. Sounds like a great essay to me.

Bill