I have written a few comments elsewhere about the reviewers themselves. But I have a few comments on the reviews too. (Coincidently, the issue I grabbed for reference is the one with Melissa R. on the cover - Apr 99) I see four steps in evaluating a kayak: 1) Discovery - I find out about it - the name, looks, type, dimmensions, capacity etc. This lets me either ignore it or get interested in it. 2) Info Gathering - I find out how others feel about the kayak. How it handles, its good and bad points etc. 3) Demo - on the pond/river/lake behind the dealers shop, at a symposium, etc. While only an easy, flat water test, it lets me eliminate the kayaks that are obviously not for me. 4) Trial - I rent, borrow (steal?) the kayak and put it through its paces under conditions that are representative enough of my typical paddling so that I can decide whether I want to shell out $$$$$$$ on the kayak. Sea Kayaker (or any other kayaking/paddling) magazine can help me considerably with 1 and 2. The problem is what's missing!!! The first page of an SK review has a photo (good) with two views (good). On the left is a column with cross sections shown (good). Then some dimensions. Unfortunately, they are in American units of measure - not good for those of us who live in the (real) metric world. Overall volume - good. But what about dry storage volume? How about telling us the capacity of the forward, day and stern compartments? If I want to replace a touring kayak, I need to know how much space I gain or lose. Speed vs resistance table. Too much space allocated. How about three columns - speed, Kaper and Taylor's. Cut the verbiage - publish a half page article once a year to explain. Keep this explanation on their web site for reference. Right column - top: Hydrostatics. Ok, but WHAT's THE DESIGN DISPLACEMENT??? How do we judge what 200 lb paddler + 100 lb cargo means in the kayak? We need a point of reference here wrt the kayak itself! One column should be for the design displacement itself (this gives the design waterline length etc). Perhaps a range of recommended weight as per the P&H adverts would be good. A note about the design speed would be good too. Next page - Design Statement. This is good, though the it shouldn't be written by the sales guys; let the designers be honest. Review: Identify the reviewers. Insist on realistic test conditions. Testing a serious tripping kayak in calm in-shore conditions with half a load of gear doesn't really cut it. I can agree on one test with an empty kayak - after all, we all paddle empty sometimes (eg- Nordkapps and CD Expeditions have a reputation of being less than great without load - we need to know that kind of thing). But testing a big kayak with a little gear makes no sense - note that the tables supplied by SK use 100 lb! The issue I'm looking at has three reviewers paddling a Seaward Endeavor - empty! Serious weather and sea conditions are mandatory in addition to calm. SK can't control the weather, but they can insist on having the kayaks long enough to allow the reviewers time to paddle in realistic conditions. Overall, I like the format. They cover the same info every issue, so you compare something approaching apples to apples. And in the same order, so if you're used to it, you can find the info you want quickly. Page three - Design response. It makes sense to allow the designer to rebut the comments. They often advise that they'll fix a problem - this is good. Options and pricing - the reality sets in. This is bad (grin)! Seriously, I have no problems with this. I'm sure if I thought longer, I'd have more to say (surprise!) but that'l do for now. Please note, I'm trying to be constructive. Mike *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************Received on Mon Aug 14 2000 - 19:06:27 PDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:30:30 PDT