Is there not a site that first detailed kayaks by length , than provided a review of the boat ? *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
At 10:00 AM 1/23/01 -0500, Ira Rosenfeld wrote: >Is there not a site that first detailed kayaks by length , than provided a >review of the boat ? You're probably looking for: http://paddling.net/Reviews/Kayaks.phtml I just recently finished an update on my kayak database (http://mayfly.mannlib.cornell.edu/kayak/) It now contains ~860 differnt models with updated statistics from a 2001 buyers guide. In additions to a lot of new listings from many new vendors, there are now a lot of entries for folding kayaks, wood kayaks, and surf skis. One of the enhancements I have considered is a link to the Paddling.net reviews database. *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Ira Rosenfeld wrote: > > Is there not a site that first detailed kayaks by length , than provided a review of > the boat ? http://www.paddling.net/Reviews/Kayaks.phtml 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. -- Steve Cramer *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
At 10:28 AM 1/23/01 -0800, Sid Taylor wrote: >Does your sight have volumes? I'd like to know the volume of the Arluk III >nd the Arluk II. No, I didn't include volume specifications in the database. When I first created the database, volume information was not a specification that seemed to be available from the sources I was using. 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). *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
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/ ***************************************************************************
I found the volume of the Arluk III in an old issue of SeaKayaker. The foreward, mid, aft and total volumes are 2.2, 6.8, 4.5 and 13.51 cubic feet (101 gallons) respectively. I would consider it an M. The Arluk II beam is 1.5 " less than the 23.5" beam of the Arluk III. I would guess the Arluk II has a volume of 95 gallons. Sid Taylor *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:20 PDT