> I have read through the archives of Nick's bulletin board and I have
> looked over your web site. (Contrary to your needlessly rude, and personal
> attack, I can read.) I saw references to knowledge you claim to possess
> about the quality of kit boats, but no data to back it up. Maybe I missed
> something. To compensate for your earlier rudeness perhaps you would like
> to re-post the data now.

> As far as your challenge is concerned, it is completely without scientific
> merit. The variables associated with the type of side by side test you
> propose are too great. For example who was unlucky enough to hit a rock?
> What are the differences in paddler skills? What are the differences in
> paddler size and weight? Are the two boats being tested indicative of the
> quality from each builder? A side by side challenge would only be valid
> with several boats tested over several seasons with several paddlers. Even
> then the results could be open to interpretation.

> A real test would involve quantitative tests in a lab. The tests used in
> motorcycle helmet certification might be good examples of that type of
> testing. Before you do any such testing, you and your opponent would have
> to come to an understanding. What kind of tests would be made? What would
> be the relevance of the results.

> Your posts indicate you may be doing some kind of quantitative testing. If
> that is the case great, post your methods and results. This will give
> other builders a measure by which to evaluate their work. More importantly
> it would give other builders a bases for understanding your claims.

> Please do not get me wrong. Your postings do indicate that you know a
> great deal about boat building. I am not questioning that, or your ability
> to build a good boat. I would just like to see better substantiation on
> the claims you make against other builders.

> Don

I've been monitoring and learning (thanks Nick) from this BBS for over a year now. Before my time, something motivated this head-butting strength thing purportedly over kayaks. It is NOT about kayaks, for those of you who have recently tuned in. Read recent posts like "Kayak Meets the Asphalt"; these boats are incredibly strong. Yes they can be holed. Even intelligent people ski into trees or drive motorcycles or cars off the road into trees. That tells us nothing about the necessary strength of the human body or our vehicles. If you like, you can test various composites and Yes, George has some interesting ideas. Still, it matters little how many decimal points you can work the relative strength thing out to...the basic premise is incorrect: they're already strong enough. The BEST kayak is one that gets you out on the water and away from garbage TV. What water? Still water to start with, learn your limits, increase your skills and then hit the big stuff when you're ready. Around here, Puget Sound, there are plenty of people who end up outside of their perfectly-sound, bulletproof kayaks and into the ice water. I exaggerate. It only feels like ice water. Kayak Strength (a nebulous term anyway) pales in comparison to real concerns, like hypothermia. That's my perspective.

I'm waiting for a real design guru like Mike Allen to design a foot pump out of PVC or ABS that keeps your hands on your paddle when you really need them for control.