Big Timber Creek - 2007

Footage I got at the Big Timber Creek Race in Montana.

Category:

Sports

Tags:

• yt:crop=16:9

[tubeneophyte]

Note to viewers: 1:54 thru 3:01 is footage of lower section of Big Timber Falls and was not part of the race course.

I was there.

The only time I put in on this creek flows were 5 to 9 times greater than what is shown in this footage. Personally I like lots of water. Others who prefer more contact with rock and lower velocities may prefer the low volume shown here.

[kayakwest]

oops, replied above.

[amcdanielzx9r]

My goodness don't some people like to sound off, can't you people just say nice vid ...well done

[Ahacanoe]

yeh tht bits awersome

[muthaholy]

2:06-2:16 is great

[maxmatmax]

there's no way !!! i would love to see someone ride the pinch with 5 x the flow shown there... gotta see those pictures... or even better a video perhaps???

[jonnyhiam]

Cool, it looks fun. tubeneophyte, all kayaking is good kayaking, high or low. I would rather go to a low volume river than study videos with a stopwatch.

[kayakwest]

Haha, you've gone through a lot of effort. I appreciate it gets ran higher (of course it does!) It's just I've run a lot of creeks with a lot of top notch creek boaters and 5 times the water as the race would be full on to the point that no one I've met would run it.

[tubeneophyte]

I've been comparing 4x6 300dpi prints shot 6/26/04 to your motion footage shot 6/9/07 and while it is obvious there is significantly more water on 6/26/04 the photos do not nor could they ever prove flows to be nine (I now agree unlikely) or even five times that of race day. Different camera angles are a factor, but more importantly in most cases it is difficult to impossible to compare flows from photo unless there is a know marker in them verified at certain levels.

[tubeneophyte]

. I prefer to calculate flow by finding a uniform channel (consistent width and depth) with relatively uniform flows throughout and time wood debris through it - and even this method is subject to +-20% (or greater) errors under the best of circumstances. I performed no calculations for either of the days in question. My comment was based on 3 1/2 year old memory. There really was a lot more water; how much I can not corroborate

[tubeneophyte]

(USGS daily data for other rivers in the area do not support my statement - I don't have access to SNOTEL archival data [which may or may not support my statement]). But those of us familiar with Big Timber Creek know that its flow can not be linearly linked with any other drainage with regards to cfs. Keep in mind 2004 was a cool wet summer with high altitude snow pack (like that which feeds BTC) in abundance late into the season. Hopefully someone else who was present on both days chimes in

[kayakwest]

First you suggest that your all about high water high volume and high velocity, "Personally I like lots of water. Others who prefer more contact with rock and lower velocities may prefer the low volume shown here." Then you say that you took out right after putting in, so you didn't even run it. You say you like high volume and flood, but you say even the risk of B.T. is too great (!?) A lot of conflicting points... I don't doubt its been run higher, but even 5 times more volume is BS.