Re: [Paddlewise] kayak specification listing

John Fereira wrote:
>>>>>The Canoe and Kayak buyers guides uses a L,M,H (low, medium, high)
rating and
rates the Arluk III as a "H" and doesn't have an entry for the Arluk II.
For comparison purposes, they rate the VCP Avocet H (the glass version)
as an "M" and I know that you've paddle that boat (just after I
did at the AKT symposium).<<<<<<

To clarify that slightly, it is the manufacturers who provide the L, M, and
H guess for the kayaks. The guidelines to to this from C & K Magazine pretty
much would make almost any sea kayak an "H". Since each manufacturer
interprets this differently those letters are virtually meaningless for
comparison sake between products from different companies. The Sea Kayaker
reviews list total volume (inside the outside skin) in cubic feet. There are
7.48 U. S. gallons in a cubic foot. While this still doesn't take in to
account the distribution of that volume and how much of it is usable storage
space it is probably the best way we have of comparing relative gear
capacity of kayaks.

Of the "owner" reviews on http://www.paddling.net/Reviews/Kayaks.phtml Steve
Cramer wrote:
>>>>>These reviews should be taken with a grain of salt, many seem to be
from
first time boat owners with not a great deal of experience.<<<<<<

I think Steve hit on the primary problem with this kind of owners self
reporting. Beyond the usual cognitive dissonance ("I picked it so it must be
a good kayak, I give it a 10") most reviewers have little else to judge
their kayak by having not paddled many others. They are more likely just
rating what they think of kayaking rather than any reasoned comparison of
kayaks. I'd give kayaking a 10 too! To complicate matters further who knows
who wrote the reviews. It could be the designer or a retailer of that model.
Conversely, it could be a competitor or someone with a real axe to grind
unrelated to the quality and characteristics of the kayak. I'd only pay
attention to the critical reviewers who are very specific about what they do
and don't like about a kayak and ignore all the other reviews. Abysmally
poor handling kayaks often rate mostly 10's. So far I haven't seen anything
that comes close to Sea Kayaker Magazines "expert" testers reviews. They are
far from perfect especially for someone who lacks the experience to "read
between the lines" and doesn't understand the relative importance of the
characteristics commented on (to themselves and sea kayaks in general). To
parody a review it is sometimes like reading: "All three testers found the
kayak quickly filled with water and sank. However quality of the finish was
excellent and the kayak balanced well for a shoulder carry."

Question for David Whyte:
Why was the NZ paddler attacked by a shark glad he was in a soft chewy
kayak?

Matt Broze
http://www.marinerkayaks.com



***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************