: This is what gets me, is it the length or the design of the boat? We have one
: very strong paddler that sometimes brings his 'toy'. A 9'(?) whitewater
: boat. It's the only time I can keep up with him. Obviously this boat is
: not designed for speed. It makes LOTS of noise in the water. You can tell
: he really works at keeping up with our normal pace and he kicks up a huge
: wake for kayak. But I think it is as much if not more the design of the
: hull than the length. It's not designed for this type paddling.

: Not arguing with anyone. Very interesting reading. Would love to be able to
: try two identical boats except for length side by side and get that seat
: of the pants feel for the differences.

Hi Jeff,
As Aaron posted, the benefit of extra length only kicks in at the upper speed range given otherwise identical hulls.
The hull length/beam ratio plays a factor as well. Below 8 to 1, the formula 1.34 X square root ot the waterline length in feet gives a fairly accurate idea of the upper limit of speed attainable. This isn't the maximum speed, just the point where the energy required to go faster goes through the roof.
Above the 8 to 1 ratio, that formula doesn't work well. The multiplier changes to 3.5.

When talking speed, ignore the overall length, go for the waterline length.
My greenlander is about a foot longer overall than my baidarka but the baidarka has a faster top speed. I think the baidarka waterline is a bit longer.
The greenlander accelerates quicker from stopped.
The 'rounder' hull of the baidarka probably makes it a bit more efficient at higher speeds, along with the slightly longer waterline.
(ok, they're not even similar, never mind identical)

Mike Savage
South West Cork