Re: [Paddlewise] Sea Kayaker Reviews

At 10:46 PM 8/14/00 -0400, John Winters wrote:
>Kevin wrote:
>
>(SNIP)
>
> >
> > I disagree that a subjective review has no value, as you seem to state.
>
>I didn't state that they had no value I said, "Any review with a subjective
>component has diminished value at best and no value at worst." Which do you
>find more useful, the length of a boat as measured or the statement "It is a
>long boat." ?

Actually, you said: "Any review with a subjective component has diminished 
value at best
and no value at worst. Unfortunately one can't tell which."

So in my opinion as a scientist, I would say that by that logic, a review 
has no value. What good is an review if you don't know for sure that it 
*isn't* worthless? So my reaction to your statement that Sea Kayaker 
reviews are worthless still stands.



> >In
> > sea kayaks, there are matters of safety as well as personal preference.
>
>Whose personal preference? Yours or the reviewer's whom you don't know
>anything about? If you want a personal opinion, why not accept the builders'
>opinion? At least you can call him up and ask him to clarify details. Try
>calling a Sea Kayaker reviewer to find out if he had a spat with his/her
>spouse before testing the boat, or hates yellow boats, or had haemorrhoids
>when testing the seat or,....

I agree that personal preference is entirely subjective and is not cause to 
defend the worthiness of Sea Kayaker's reviews. However my main point is 
that there are *safety* issues in a boat design as well. You do know what 
safety means, don't you? This sentence was merely a lead into my 
description of how any reviewer with decent experience can determine some 
definite *safety* issues with a good degree of accuracy.

>.
> >Any
> > moderately experienced paddler can determine them. For instance,
> > weathercocking (with and without a skeg/rudder device) is essential safety
> > information. Skegs get jammed and rudders break often enough that I want a
> > boat that doesn't weathercock without them. Also, the quality of
> > construction is a safety issue. For instance, a recent boat that I tested
> > had seams that leaked and deck rigging that ripped off the boat under
> > strain. If I was in the market for a new kayak, I would consider such
> > information alone quite valuable.

>Useful if accurate but how do you how the accuracy of the opinions?


There is indeed a leap of faith required here. You have to believe that 
other kayakers can exist in the same universe who have equal or better 
skill than yourself. I understand how difficult this can be for some 
people... I suffer from it myself on occasion. :)


>I would
>not consider the observation of a leaking boat a subjective opinion. On the
>other hand, how much weathercocking constitutes "weathercocking". Actually,
>your "opinion " about skegs and rudders jamming and breaking "often" reveals
>the failure in opinions since some  people in this list have argued just the
>opposite.  Whose opinion should we believe?

As far as the whole rudder vs. skeg thing. Nobody can refute the fact that 
rudders do occasionally break and skegs do occasionally jam. Why settle for 
a boat that depends on a piece of equipment that occasionally breaks? Good 
designers can produce boats that don't need a rudder or skeg at all. Given 
that fact, jamming once is often enough for me, although it has happened 
many more times than once to me.

As far as to whose opinion to believe, the Sea Kayaker review is rather 
limited in scope. It does not aspire to telling people what to believe. It 
is merely input for the person who decides to take the boat for a later 
test paddle. I think we all agree that the test paddle is a necessary step 
for anyone serious about buying the right kayak for themselves.



>(SNIP)
>
> >
> > I am curious why feel so strongly about this. What are the specific
> > problems associated with paddling at the wrong displacement? It would help
> > me to think about the problem if you would give us a numerical example
> > using one of your kayaks. What are the inherent problems that a practical
> > test might spuriously encounter. How much leeway is there in your designs,
> > given differing body weights and differing loads  (day vs multi-day)?
>
>As the displacement changes stability, form coefficients, waterline length,
>waterline beam,  etc. etc. etc. change.  As a consequence the boat no longer
>performs as designed. Depending on what expert you talk to, some can notice
>very small differences in performance. Many believe they can paddle two
>different boats on different days and know which has more resistance etc.
>etc. etc.
>
>It has nothing to do with the "leeway" in my designs. It has to do with the
>changes in immersed hull of any boat. Do you think you would notice a
>difference in your own boats performance  if you paddled it with say, +/-
>20% in displacement? Do you think it fair to test a 12' waterline kayak at
>325 pounds of displacement  and compare the results with a 16' waterline
>kayak at the same displace?

I'm sorry, perhaps my question wasn't fully clear. I wanted a numerical 
example of why the standard Sea Kayaker test cannot produce the 
displacement conditions that your boats require for proper performance. If 
your boats are so finely tuned to a certain displacement, what do you tell 
people who want a boat that they can paddle either loaded with 50-100lbs of 
gear or unloaded?


>(SNIP)
>
> >
> > How much would your tests cost? If they require specialized equipment, I
> > bet they would be expensive. Sure it would be nice to have someone
>spending
> > a lot of money to test kayaks, but it is not really necessary for Sea
> > Kayaker to do that and still keep their review quality far better than
>
>What do you call  "expensive" and how  much would you like to bet? :-)


Okay, so the judgmental term "expensive" is hard to define. I'll grant you 
that. But I think it is difficult enough to design a truly objective test 
of sea kayak handling regardless of expense. Perhaps you can enlighten us 
with how you might do this. ;-)

In fact, I would go so far as to challenge anyone on this list to come up 
with a set of truly objective tests for sea kayak handling. I have a B.S. 
in physics, and I would be happy to play devil's advocate in discerning 
whether proposed tests really capture the essence of the physics that a 
paddler would encounter. I have thought about this concept recently and I 
do believe that it would be extremely difficult to quantitatively test some 
(not all) of what I consider the essential aspects of kayak handling.

Well, that's enough debate for tonight. I do hope you are enjoying it. Cheers,
Kevin



Kevin Whilden
Your Planet Earth
http://www.yourplanetearth.org
(206) 788-0281 (ph)
(206) 788-0284 (f)

***************************************************************************
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/
***************************************************************************