# Jet kayaking over the Niagara Falls



## Riparian (Feb 7, 2009)

The "Darwin Awards" anxiously awaits his attempt.


----------



## Phil U. (Feb 7, 2009)

*"Uh, I'm just gonna go find a cash machine."*

*Years ago a wealthy friend's little kid says to me after overhearing me complain about a lack of funds, "Well why don't you just go to the bank and get some more like my Dad?" *


----------



## SummitAP (Jun 23, 2007)

Sounds like a pulse jet. Hope the engine doesn't get flooded, or cracked->explode. Sounds like an exciting way to die.


----------



## bwilkins (Jan 2, 2006)

SummitAP said:


> Sounds like a pulse jet. Hope the engine doesn't get flooded, or cracked->explode. Sounds like an exciting way to die.


Pulse jet? No. Just a ducted turbine like a jet ski. I love the idea of using compressed air tanks for the oxidizer. That's like having NOS between your legs.


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

come on rip this is your sack of beans.

crazy. i would like to watch.


----------



## Kendo (Jul 26, 2006)

Amazing, I have seen him in the mentioned artlicle on Top Gear(also can be seen at top gear .com, I doubted if he would win the race but his little engine propelled kayak was fast.. All be it as it was, I cant even imagine a several hundred feet drop with a engine in the back of our properly balanced whitewater kayaks. He has some mucho grande cahones for sure...


----------



## CliveRichards (Mar 6, 2009)

Niagara Falls takes over the jet kayaking it is more enjoyable and also dangerous .


----------



## -k- (Jul 15, 2005)

So if the newest world record holder hit 70 mph at entry, this guy would likely be going faster due to the additional height off the falls, attained speed and weight. This may not end well...


----------



## Claytonious (Jan 17, 2008)

Seems really really dumb.


----------



## Smurfwarrior (Feb 23, 2009)

Senseless and pointless...why doesn't he just attach a hand glider to his bullshit contraption and land his ass down stream a bit. A kayaker he is not. He's simply a 'sit-down' PWC operator who is going to bring negative media coverage to our sport when he joins the Dawin Award nominees. If he does pull it off, it counts for nothing.


----------



## yetigonecrazy (May 23, 2005)

Smurfwarrior said:


> Senseless and pointless...why doesn't he just attach a hand glider to his bullshit contraption and land his ass down stream a bit. A kayaker he is not. He's simply a 'sit-down' PWC operator who is going to bring negative media coverage to our sport when he joins the Dawin Award nominees. If he does pull it off, it counts for nothing.



and you are obviously not a kayaker, and should not be referencing it as "our" sport.

whether this one works or is a "good" idea or not is beside the point; shaun baker has in the past thrown himself in a kayak off some GNARLY drops, and will continue to do so when he isn't jet kayaking. he held the world record freefall for several years, and when he isn't hucking off major waterfalls im sure he's out charging down the scariest creeks he can find too.

you may not like these antics, but he's more of a kayaker than you, than me, than anyone here, more than about 99% of people will ever. so rip on the antics, not the kayaker.


----------



## Phil U. (Feb 7, 2009)

yetigonecrazy said:


> and you are obviously not a kayaker, and should not be referencing it as "our" sport.
> 
> whether this one works or is a "good" idea or not is beside the point; shaun baker has in the past thrown himself in a kayak off some GNARLY drops, and will continue to do so when he isn't jet kayaking. he held the world record freefall for several years, and when he isn't hucking off major waterfalls im sure he's out charging down the scariest creeks he can find too.
> 
> you may not like these antics, but he's more of a kayaker than you, than me, than anyone here, more than about 99% of people will ever. so rip on the antics, not the kayaker.


Jeeze yeti, you've gone crazy. 

"he's more of a kayaker than you, than me, than anyone here" How do you determine that? Even if yer using the questionable standards of big drops or hard creeking then you would seem to be on shaky ground saying that to all the Buzzards here. Baker actually came up as a playboater but I doubt he would make it out of the 2nd round at a Worlds comp nowadays. 

How about defend the man but w/o knocking anybody else?


----------



## Smurfwarrior (Feb 23, 2009)

I'm not saying he "isn't a kayaker" every other day of the week..I'm saying when he's driving his little boat it shouldn't count the same.


----------



## paddlebizzle (Oct 15, 2003)

Smurfwarrior said:


> why doesn't he just attach a hand glider to his bullshit contraption and land his ass down stream a bit.


Funny - I actually agree. Baker has balls bigger than my oversized head, but I still think it is stupid.

Sort of reminds me of big wave tow-in versus paddling debate a few years back.


----------



## bobbuilds (May 12, 2007)

did anyone stop to think "maybe he's going up the falls?"


----------



## Snowhere (Feb 21, 2008)

bobbuilds said:


> did anyone stop to think "maybe he's going up the falls?"


ROTFL!

Definitely does not pass the sniff test.


----------



## ZGjethro (Apr 10, 2008)

I seem to remember from my physics classes that the vertical velocity gained from a fall is independent from the horizontal velocity, but wouldn't he impact with a combined velocity factor of vertical and horizontal speeds? It seems that the impact force would be greater than a straight vertical plunge. I hope he is weighing this factor against the risk of hydraulic recirculation at the base of the falls. 

Since there is no official category for Niagara descents, It does not really matter how he goes over. It will still be an illegal stunt. I think the Public will pick up on the fact that his craft is powered and will not confuse him with a creek boater running a falls. My $.02


----------



## deepstroke (Apr 3, 2005)

I call bullshit. I say he will never go over Niagra. He's just talking about doing it but he never will unless he's done with life. He might run some smaller falls, but never Niagra.


----------



## RealitySheriff (Oct 16, 2003)

Interesting how many on this thread are questioning the sanity of this individual and praising Pedro Olivia for his new world record drop of 127ft. Niagra is only 5 kayak lengths further. Hmmmmm?


----------



## Riparian (Feb 7, 2009)

RealitySheriff said:


> Interesting how many on this thread are questioning the sanity of this individual and praising Pedro Olivia for his new world record drop of 127ft. Niagra is only 5 kayak lengths further. Hmmmmm?


LOL. That was _good_.


----------



## Claytonious (Jan 17, 2008)

I just don't get what he is thinking. When people run big falls they don't boof because you would break your back. And when you land at the base of a waterfall, it is aerated and soft, if you land in the flat water it is like landing on pavement. It does not matter how fast he is going horizontally, he is still going to have the same amount of velocity vertically. If he lands flat, he is done, even if he pencils in, he is probably dead, which is going to be impossible to control, given the speeds, the height, and the unpredictability of the water. I jumped off of a sixty foot cliff once and had to get stitches on my face just from the impact with the water, and I landed pretty straight. No matter how you land from 200 feet, or whatever Niagra is, you are screwed, especially with a motor stapped between your legs. Running Niagra without the jet kayak would be much safer. Either this guy is insane, mis-informed, or bluffing, probably a little bit of each.


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

Claytonious said:


> I just don't get what he is thinking. When people run big falls they don't boof because you would break your back. And when you land at the base of a waterfall, it is aerated and soft, if you land in the flat water it is like landing on pavement. It does not matter how fast he is going horizontally, he is still going to have the same amount of velocity vertically. If he lands flat, he is done, even if he pencils in, he is probably dead, which is going to be impossible to control, given the speeds, the height, and the unpredictability of the water. I jumped off of a sixty foot cliff once and had to get stitches on my face just from the impact with the water, and I landed pretty straight. No matter how you land from 200 feet, or whatever Niagra is, you are screwed, especially with a motor stapped between your legs. Running Niagra without the jet kayak would be much safer. Either this guy is insane, mis-informed, or bluffing, probably a little bit of each.


Landing flat while moving forward is not the same as just landing flat. Yes, you fall at the same rate no matter what, but having forward motion allows some of that force to be transfered into movement. Usually when you see someone get hurt from a botched boof, its because they stall out and land flat, with the full force transfering up into your butt and spine.

If you are moving forward and down, especially at high rates of speed, much of that force is transferred into further forward movement, and upward movement (i.e. bounce). Its like a rock skipping. Look at Sam Drevo's run of the Paonia Res over flow chute. He also went down 200 feet but also had forward movement, and resulted in him catapulting into the air and forward when he hit the pile at the bottom.

Its not directly correlated, since Niagra would involve a freefall. The same ideas do come into play though. As long as he has some forward trajectory when he lands, the force will dissipate from movement. He'll still feel I'm sure, but it won't be as bad as falling straight down and landing flat. Plus, the bubble pool extends a significant way out from the falls, so he'll have that to cushion too. Much better to escape the back tow of the falls and hit a bit harder water, then landing in something that might be softer but will suck you in and very likely kill you.

What is more worry, and what happened to the only other person to attempt Niagra in a kayak, is the tendency to tumble as you go over the falls. Its clearly an issue, as Tao Berman illustrated in his first record braking fall with the use of water filled milk cartons in the front of the boat. The weight distribution will be key in the boat to insure that it stays at the right angle.

In the end, it doesn't look like Sean Baker lacks intelligence. I think that if he does attempt this, it will be fully thought out and all risks will be assesed. He hasn't even tried a smaller waterfall with this thing as far as I can tell, so I'll wait and see how that goes before calling this guy an adrenaline powered crack pot.

JH


----------



## Claytonious (Jan 17, 2008)

Electric-Mayhem said:


> Landing flat while moving forward is not the same as just landing flat. Yes, you fall at the same rate no matter what, but having forward motion allows some of that force to be transfered into movement. Usually when you see someone get hurt from a botched boof, its because they stall out and land flat, with the full force transfering up into your butt and spine.
> 
> If you are moving forward and down, especially at high rates of speed, much of that force is transferred into further forward movement, and upward movement (i.e. bounce). Its like a rock skipping. Look at Sam Drevo's run of the Paonia Res over flow chute. He also went down 200 feet but also had forward movement, and resulted in him catapulting into the air and forward when he hit the pile at the bottom.
> 
> ...


No you are incorrect. It does not matter how fast you are moving horizontally when you hit the water. You can break up your real velocity into components that are parrallel and perpendicular to the plane of the water, and treat them independently. It is basic physics, you are going to have the same vertical velocity when you hit the water, and hence the same acceleration in the vertical direction. Since force equals mass times acceleration (F=MA) you are going to have the same force exerted on you. This is completely different than going off a non-vertical slide. When you go off a non-vertical slide, your vertical component of velocity never gets as high, it has nothing to do with how fast you are going horizontally. It would not be too hard to calculate the value of his velocity normal to the surface of the water when he hits, and then get his acceleration from that. 

"Having forward motion allows some of that force to be transferred into forward motion" is just not correct. What laws of physics are you using here? You are probably thinking of either someone going off of a non-vertical slide or something along the lines of when a skydiver increases his horizontal speed, right before he hits the ground, or a skier or snowboarder landing on a NON-HORIZONTAL slope. Both of these situations involve different factors than a vertical free-fall. In the case of a skier landing on a slope, having more speed does help, because, in a way you are moving away from the surface you are impacting, decreasing your acceleration. This is not the case when you land on flat water. With skydiving you are using the force between your parachute and the air to convert some some your downward kinetic energy into horizontal kinetic energy. Unless he is going to be using a parachute, he will not be able to do this.

Listen, I am not trying to say this guy is a crack-pot, or just trying to get into an argument for the sake of it. I am just saying that he has not fully thought out all of the mechanics of landing in green water from 200 feet. Besides the physics of kayaking is an interesting topic by itself.


----------



## KSC (Oct 22, 2003)

I agree, regardless of his horizontal speed, he's going to have a lot of vertical momentum. When he hits the water, the force exerted upwards on his body will be the same regardless of his speed in the horizontal plane.

I suspect there's something missing in the explanation in this article. I'm guessing he really thinks the problem is getting caught in the hydraulic at the bottom and we wants to propel himself past the hydraulic but short of the green water so he can hit the aerated water at an angle but still clear the hydraulic. At least that's my guess, that the article just didn't clearly relate his strategy - otherwise it doesn't make sense.


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

Claytonious said:


> No you are incorrect. It does not matter how fast you are moving horizontally when you hit the water. You can break up your real velocity into components that are parrallel and perpendicular to the plane of the water, and treat them independently. It is basic physics, you are going to have the same vertical velocity when you hit the water, and hence the same acceleration in the vertical direction. Since force equals mass times acceleration (F=MA) you are going to have the same force exerted on you. This is completely different than going off a non-vertical slide. When you go off a non-vertical slide, your vertical component of velocity never gets as high, it has nothing to do with how fast you are going horizontally. It would not be too hard to calculate the value of his velocity normal to the surface of the water when he hits, and then get his acceleration from that.
> 
> "Having forward motion allows some of that force to be transferred into forward motion" is just not correct. What laws of physics are you using here? You are probably thinking of either someone going off of a non-vertical slide or something along the lines of when a skydiver increases his horizontal speed, right before he hits the ground, or a skier or snowboarder landing on a NON-HORIZONTAL slope. Both of these situations involve different factors than a vertical free-fall. In the case of a skier landing on a slope, having more speed does help, because, in a way you are moving away from the surface you are impacting, decreasing your acceleration. This is not the case when you land on flat water. With skydiving you are using the force between your parachute and the air to convert some some your downward kinetic energy into horizontal kinetic energy. Unless he is going to be using a parachute, he will not be able to do this.
> 
> Listen, I am not trying to say this guy is a crack-pot, or just trying to get into an argument for the sake of it. I am just saying that he has not fully thought out all of the mechanics of landing in green water from 200 feet. Besides the physics of kayaking is an interesting topic by itself.


Not everything you learn in Physics class is always true in the real world. There are many more factors to things then just height and gravity. 

Its a conservation of movement thing. If he is moving forward, he will continue to move forward once he hits the water. Therefore, not all the force will be directly applied upwards into his body. A lot of it will be applied to the kayaks movement. Yes, he'll be going quite fast no matter what, and some of the force will be applied upwards into his body. Its like those guys that do Free Running stuff and jump off of large heights but seem to get away with it. If you watch them, their momentum carries them forward and the force to their body is dissipated. I'm no physicist, but in theory that idea should transfer to a kayaker hitting water. If all the force was always transferred fully into an upward movement, stunt water skiers and Wakeboard guys would never be able to do what they do.

Plus, he won't be hitting green water. Check this picture out:










The water is completely aerated out pretty far from the falls, so its not like he'll be hitting green water. 

Like I said, much more important is figuring out how to weight the boat so as to insure the proper angle and minimizing tumble. I have a feeling that getting a big creeker, and putting it slightly towards the front of the boat would be best, but I'm not in the habit of hucking huge falls, so I can't say for sure.

Looking at some of the pictures of Niagra, it seems like a lot of the falls have fairly large boulders in the landing zone, so finding a good spot to run would be key. Oh and its only 173 feet (phssfft......only).

JH


----------



## KSC (Oct 22, 2003)

> Its a conservation of movement thing. If he is moving forward, he will continue to move forward once he hits the water. Therefore, not all the force will be directly applied upwards into his body. A lot of it will be applied to the kayaks movement.


I still don't understand your argument. He will be moving forward after impact because he will also have a large amount of horizontal momentum coming into the water. But he will still apply a downward force equal to if he had just plopped over the drop with no speed. He won't move very much in the downward direction because there will be extremely high surface tension. Unfortunately, that energy doesn't magically disappear, it is exerted into his boat and his body. If you fall 170 feet, either something breaks your fall, or you break your fall.


----------



## deepstroke (Apr 3, 2005)

I would think all of his forward momentum will be lost by the time he hits the water, so, all of the the conjecture on how his forward momentum will affect the force of the landing is a moot point. He'd still be coming straight down.


----------



## Kendo (Jul 26, 2006)

i would tend to agree with yeti and realitysheriff, Shaun Baker is very well known in the UK, he is a bad ass kayaker, like some things he may be thought of as crazy now but wait until he succeeds, he does put most to shame.. especially some on here who offer criticism, but they barely make it bye on class 3


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

KSC said:


> I still don't understand your argument. He will be moving forward after impact because he will also have a large amount of horizontal momentum coming into the water. But he will still apply a downward force equal to if he had just plopped over the drop with no speed. He won't move very much in the downward direction because there will be extremely high surface tension. Unfortunately, that energy doesn't magically disappear, it is exerted into his boat and his body. If you fall 170 feet, either something breaks your fall, or you break your fall.



Don't really feel like doing much more explaining of this theory (maybe one more try). I do think it holds up (may or may not at 170 feet), but I seem to be the only one.

There is more to it then the fall and landing, as there is a reaction upon landing. Fall straight down, the reaction will be to go straight back up. Fall and move forward, and the kayak will move with the path of least resistance with the forces applied. Since the boat is moving both sideways and downwards, not all the of the reacting force is applied back into the boat. The kayak will go the way that is least resistant, that being sideways rather then up this time.

Do this, get a block of wood or something that floats and is relatively kayak shaped and find a water source (sink with a few inches of water will do). Now, drop it straight down and watch what happens. Then give it some sideways velocity so that it lands going a bit forward at the same time. I think you'll notice that it will take some of the downward force and apply it horizontally into movement, instead of just stopping the kayak dead and transferring it into the the kayak. Yes, some of the upward force is still applied, but not nearly as much as if you fell straight down and landed flat.

JH


----------



## Claytonious (Jan 17, 2008)

Electric-Mayhem said:


> Don't really feel like doing much more explaining of this theory (maybe one more try). I do think it holds up (may or may not at 170 feet), but I seem to be the only one.
> 
> There is more to it then the fall and landing, as there is a reaction upon landing. Fall straight down, the reaction will be to go straight back up. Fall and move forward, and the kayak will move with the path of least resistance with the forces applied. Since the boat is moving both sideways and downwards, not all the of the reacting force is applied back into the boat. The kayak will go the way that is least resistant, that being sideways rather then up this time.
> 
> ...


 
I don't really feel like doing much more explaining either. Listen I have a degree in physics and work as an engineer. I have a pretty good understanding of freshman physics, which is what this is.

Your ideas are ideas that most intelligent people, without formal training in physics or engineering probably hold. Without the formal physics or engineering, or math training, it is very hard to get over the intuitive ideas that are many times wrong. I am not calling you, or Shaun Baker stupid, and you are probably a much better kayaker than me, but I have a much better grasp of the mechanics of falling from large heights. 

Your wakeboarding example is a good one. Why do you think wakeboarders try to land on the slope of the opposite wake, instead of in the flatwater? If they landed in the flatwater, they would still hit hard, not matter how fast they are going. 

Another good example is when Evil Knievel jumped the Grand Canyon. He was going really fast when he reached the other side, but they still had a ramp for him to land on, if he had landed on flat ground on the other side he would have been screwed (I think he broke a ton of bones anyway). 

When you take a wooden block and throw it into the water with some horizontal speed, of course it is going to keep moving in that direction. However, that does not mean that the force in the vertical direction is any less.

If you don't believe me, go ask some other engineer or physicist.


----------



## Don (Oct 16, 2003)

*Big Falls*

Interesting topic: But, if you want to know something really scary... Niagara Falls until about 1000 years ago was a straight line. The horse shoe shape it has now is very new, and that's one of the reasons why it looks so arrated from above. A good potion of the rocks that made up that old horizon line are just beneath the surface. And, at the center of the horseshoe bend the water is only 10 feet deep. Ouch!

Here's a pic of the American side with no water to give you a peak at what that would look like: Fileryniagara.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Remember that most stunt men get paid based off of the hype and not the actual act.


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

I still remember the first freshman physics question that dealt with this. Which falls to the ground faster, a bullet that is dropped from a stationary position, or a bullet that is shot out of a gun horizontally? The answer is they land at the same time. Both have the same vertical air resistance working on them, and gravity, and as others have said the horizontal force is completely separate from the vertical one. This is because once he goes off the waterfall, there is no more horizontal force (of the water pushing him downriver or the explosion pushing the bullet), and instead it is all gravity, pulling him straight down. As other big falls drops show, horizontal speed is lost almost immediately, there is just too much air resistance. Add in the additional weird air turbulence created by the falls, and you are going to lose your horizontal speed quickly.

Doesn't he need that jet to maintain horizontal speed all the way down, because the bottom is all rocks? I'm not sure, but I seem to recall that Niagara is not a nice vertical falls underneath all that water at the bottom.


----------

