Justifying Design Limits?
Extract from Paddlers Guide to Outrigger Canoeing
'Only the village idiot would have suggested to his chief, that design limits should be implemented on hull design, on account of the fact that neighbouring islands were building faster canoes; rather than meeting the challenge of designing a better one themselves'
While specification limitations were ostensibly created to protect the integrity and originality of the Hawaiian koa racing wa`a, these mathematical scribblings went a long way towards serving the needs of the manufacturer of the fibreglass wa`a just as they were gaining momentum. In French Polynesia, no such mechanism exists and consequently many va`a remain ‘hand-made’ one-off designs. With much secrecy and speculation regarding va`a design remaining open-ended, they allow the designs to evolve as a natural extension of the culture itself.
Two major factors which lead to the introduction of specifications were; the influx of Tahitian designers into Hawaii in the mid 1970s and the unprecedented 1976 victory of a Tahitian crew in Hawaii’s prestigious Molokai to Oahu race. While some native Hawaiians were involved, the changes were primarily brought about by Anglo-Hawaiians, setting out in strict empirical terms what defined an ‘Hawaiian’ team racing wa`a. In short, the specifications created were determined by applying the ‘law of averages’, measuring the lengths, beams, draught, water line lengths and rocker line of existing competition koa racing wa`a, most built after 1930. Thus they arrived at a set of specifications, the ‘limits’ of which, continue to this day to define what ‘is’ or ‘is not’ an Hawaiian racing wa`a, be it koa or synthetic.
Notions of ensuring a singular canoe ‘does not have an unfair advantage’ because of a superior design, is a narrow view of competition. This is especially so when you consider the sport from the artisan’s point of view throughout Polynesian and indeed Oceania. To be true to this virtue, the introduction of a ‘One-Design Class’ as exists in yacht and dinghy racing is the only reasonable way to create neutrality between designs and therefore base results solely on the merits of the competitors.
The most compelling argument against the implementation of design rulings can be based on the very simple premise that there exists little or no evidence to support the notion that ancient Hawaiians designed purpose built racing wa`a. Therefore the manifestations of these rulings are entirely ‘contemporary’ in concept and based upon no ‘traditional’ virtue whatsoever.
Tommy Holmes in his book, The Hawaiian Canoe notes, ‘After almost forty years of unquestioning reproduction of the Malia type Kona canoe, local Hawaiian canoeists, subsequent to exposure to Tahitian-type canoes, began experimenting in 1977 with some new designs. With few guidelines as to what defines a Hawaiian canoe, it has been difficult to say when certain racing canoes built in Hawai`i today depart from what is, or would have been considered Hawaiian…..regretfully the answers to these and other related questions do not exist.’
Consequently, when you view this argument from the viewpoint of defining what is a traditional Hawaiian racing wa`a over that which is not, it soon becomes a moot point. The Koa ‘Malia’ shaped in 1933 could be considered ‘contemporary’ as was the Tahitian-Hawaiian canoe raced in 1976. In view of these considerations, and as no rules existed at the time of their creation, we should consider the thought applied at that time, as ‘contemporary’, not traditional or ancient.
Billy Danford recounts, ‘Possibly the greatest impact by any one group of craftsman has come from the Tahitians. Puaa Niho and several others from Tahiti, crafted koa va`a, using the traditional shallow draft ‘V’ shaped hull starting in 1975. In a very short time, the traditional values of Hawai`i were viewed as being ‘compromised’. For the second time in seventeen years, innovative changes resulting in a new fleet of Tahitian designed va`a, forced the sports governing body, the Hawaiian Canoe Racing Association [HCRA] in 1977-78 to establish new rules governing the construction of ‘new’ traditional Hawaiian hybrid koa wa`a.'
While Hawai`i can take much credit for developing contemporary open ocean wa`a racing, it is the influence of the Tahitians which has profoundly influenced the evolution of va`a design and paddling technique across the Pacific and beyond, even to the extent of permeating the Hawaiian consciousness. When you get down to the fundamentals, Hawai`i is culturally linked to Tahiti via ethnicity and origin causing the eventual introduction of design specifications to be considered by many Tahitians as a cultural slap in the face. It also ceased an ancient dissemination of knowledge between artisans from these two regions, at least in practical terms.
The rationale for creating design limits is thin when you consider that racing va`a in both Tahiti and Hawai`i at the time were being rationalised not on the basis of cultural narrow mindedness, but to create a faster va`a. There clearly existed a mutual cultural synergy; an open exchange of maritime architectural knowledge between artisans separated by distance, not culture, founded out of respect not the lack thereof.
If we concede that Hawai`i was settled by voyages from Tahiti and the Marquesas, the question must be asked, at what point did the Hawaiian wa`a evolve uniquely from that of the Tahitian va`a? And if this synergy of cultural exchange has been occurring since settlement, what genuine justification can be made for interfering with what was no more than a natural evolutionary process?
The rules for French Polynesia read; ‘There is no imposed shape. Wood, plastic or any other material may be used for the va`a or ama. The `iako must be made of wood. 150kg is the minimum weight for the hull with spray cover accessories. 120kg is the minimum weight for the canoe without ballast. 30kg is maximum weight of the ballast. No water pumps, or foot chocks, drifters or keel to be added to the hull.’ This is in stark contrast to almost every other Pacific Rim country, region, state and island group, which has chosen to align itself with the Hawaiian view of things and adopt their design limitations. While the USA, Canada and Australia, with eyes wide shut, have failed to consider the Tahitian factor or relevance, other regions have adopted for the Tahitian view or a blend of both, notably New Caledonia, Wallis Futuna and Southern France.
Established or emerging regions have tended to align either with the Hawaiian or Tahitian ‘interpretation’, with merits on both sides of the fence. However if you are interested in keeping the red tape to a minimum, together with the fundamental belief in the advancement of the craft itself (and the sport as a whole), then the Tahitian option is by far the better option.
Under such terms, va`a builders and artisans of French Polynesia are at liberty to advance va`a design. Those who implement and oversee va`a racing in these islands, acknowledge their fundamental right as Polynesians to continue the search and advancement of the va`a without restriction, thereby perpetuating their maritime heritage and honouring the skills of their ancestors. From the mountainous Society Islands of Bora Bora, Tahaa, Raiate`a and Huahine and the principal islands of Tahiti and Moorea to the low lying Tuamotu Archipelago, Austral Islands and Mangareva and to the far flung reaches of the Marquesas Islands, va`a artisans are free to act upon every instinct and implement this within va`a design as is their birth right without restriction or limit.