: I'm not sure I understand your statement regarding aluminum flex and it's
: performance on ocean vs. inland waters. {snip}

: Hi Tom,

: I have built an ash-tree iqyax (6aügàpka) and the flex of the 16,5 mm
: stringers just amazed me. I'm now building an alu tubing kayak.
: : The square (actually rectangular) section also permits more bend.
: It seems to me that a tube, due to its shape, is generally stiffer.

: As for sea flexibility, I was referring to Inuit (as well as Aleut) designs,
: that rely on a huge flexibility to cope with ocean waves.

: All the best

: Eric

Hi Eric,

Okay, now I understand your premise. I wasn't sure if you meant that the
aluminum framed kayak had too little, or too much flex for open ocean paddling.

So, If we are comparing Aleut designs , lets use LM-14886 as a basis, I would
agree that the traditional SOF version is probably more flexible than the
aluminum frame non-folder of the same design. However, my non-folding aluminum
SOF's are epoxy/lashed together which makes them more rigid than the
traditional lashing.

If LM-14886 were an aluminum folder, then the looser attachment points and
sectioned tubes would allow for a very flexible frame. Woodstrip , S&G, and
Fiberglass are all very rigid. But, these rigid designs perform just
fine in an Ocean environment.

That being the case, aluminum, with less flex than traditional SOF, but much
more flex than Woodstrip, should perform equally well to the others. It would
be an interesting experiment to build a single design , say a Greenland design,
in traditional SOF, Aluminum folder or non-folder, and S&G or woodstrip, and
compare them in equal conditions with equally skilled paddlers. The skilled
paddler requirement would most likely eliminate me from the test.

If you need me, I'll be at the CAD working on an East Greenland design.

Thanks Eric, I enjoyed the discussion.

Tom