Re: [Paddlewise] Sea Kayaker Reviews

Kevin wrote:

>
> 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.

Good point, I will clarify my statement to say that unless one knows the
source and support for an opinion then one should treat it with scepticism.

> 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.

Yes, Kevin, I do know what safety means. Have I missed something in the tone
of this question that I should recognise?


Your comment leads me to my question, how do we know the reviewers have
decent experience?  Suppose I did the reviews, would you grant them the same
respect you would grant a review from, for example, Matt Brose? If not, then
I rest my case. By not giving my opinion equal respect you acknowledge that
reviews vary in value. Now, I ask you again, how do we know that the
reviewers have as much experience or knowledge as even me much less Matt? If
you do give my opinion equal credence, then I still rest my case because you
know very little about my experience and skills.  I also have some swamp I
would like to sell. :-)

>
> 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. :)

Most of us recognise this but how do we know an anonymous reviewer has more
skill or knowledge or does not have a hidden agenda? I would ask again how
do we know the reviewer deserves our respect? As a scientist do you have as
much respect for papers you receive when they come from anonymous sources?
Do you generally like to see quantifiable support for a premise or do you
just accept any theory that sounds good to you?

>
> 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.

Actually this has strayed off the topic. The question I asked had nothing to
do with your opinion of yourself as an expert in this area but whether any
one should believe your opinion or anyone else opinion over that of others
who may have as much or maybe even more expertise.

> 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.

Correct me if I error but the topic I commented on had to do with the
validity and value of the subjective comments in Sea Kayaker. I did not
suggest that they aspire to tell people what to believe although I believe
novices to the sport will tend to give them more credence than they deserve.


>
> 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?

Once again it has nothing to do with my kayak designs. It has to do with all
boats. My concern has nothing to do with what I tell people but what Sea
Kayaker tells people via its tests. I did not say the Sea Kayaker test could
not produce displacement conditions for specific boats. I said that they DID
NOT.

> >
> >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. ;-)

Perhaps you can define what you feel "expensive" means. Then we can see what
kind of bet we can come up with. ;-).

>
> 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.

I think a more appropriate question has to do with whether anyone can come
up with tests that improve on the subjective commentary. You may recall the
quote about not letting the perfect become the enemy of the good. It applies
here. As a scientist you know that we build on our methods. We do not pull
them out of a hat full blown and perfect. A more useful challenge would
challenge someone to improve on the subjective tests now used rather than
accept them as the best we can do.

To help me get started thinking about this what do you consider the
"essential aspects of kayak handling". Hopefully we will all agree.

Cheers,

John Winters
Redwing Designs
Web site address http://home.ican.net/~735769





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