: Bill,

: Thanks for your comments.

: * Sure, but he question isn't the shape, but the structure.

A problem I see is the interior shape that is determined by the structure. The floor is raised much to high. This raised floor elivates the seat, raising your center of gravity, making the kayak less stable for its beam. Even on my first one I altered the construction to lower it some. On the second, I radically altered the construction to lower it even more.

: * Neither brass nor sealed fastenings would be my best choice on a yak.

I've been using brass and bronze without problems except when used in hardwoods, then the brass screws have snapped. SS should work great.

: It also sounds like Tom is planning on freshwater paddling, which is a much
: less : corrosive environment than salt water. Also, Mike correct me if I'm
: wrong : here, but the breaks in your Walrus occurred on glued joints
: (polyU) where : screws were recommended, but not used.

That is where most of the breaks occured. I don't think it was the lack of screws though, it may have been the PU glue. A single screw would not have helped much. Most of the failures have been the trusses, but I have even had scarf joints fail. I have also broken a chine stringer. I did have some epoxied deck stringer sister come loose on my first Putz, but I had used 15 minute epoxy.

: * There again, the argument isn't about structure.

: * Elegance doesn't matter there either. The use of tenons and pegs don't make
: traditional craft rigid. The flex remains due to the flexibility of the
: stringers. Wooden pegs aren't steel screws.
: Any s-o-f IS flexible even if you build it otherwise, anyway. The question is
: to control the flex.

The truss style frame does flex, and when it does, it tends to put a lot of stress on the light stringers. The typical lashed frame is built to handle the flexing better, some even have joints in the keelson to flex more.

: * Open cockpit boats take more water in, which makes them actually less safe.
: As of rolling...that wouldn't be my best choice either!

I didn't like the open cockpit, and switched to a keyhole. I do use the kayak in rough water. I regularly roll mine.

: * So, why not build a canoe?

: They are obviously not intended as ocean going, : river running vessels.

In his book he explicitly states that they are not for rough water like rivers. But I use mine in rough water, but dont go in rivers.

: * 80% of paddling casualties happen on flat water. Danger isn't to be found
: only TUXOOKEAHCK6IE
: When a lake gets stormy, the 2 or 3 feet high waves that are enough to make
: him capsize just won't hear a beginner telling them that, acoording to the
: book, he is supposed to keep frolicking on a mirror-flat lake.
: Some shallow lakes "tsunamis" reach 5 meters high. Are the
: beginner-builders made aware of such a possibility?
: For the same price, why not pick the real thing rather than a limited-use
: substitute?
: In addition, the structure wears even more on portaging. And the Putz is
: really heavy for a sof.

Another problem with the structure is installing float bags. The floor beams get in the way, and allow for more water to enter the kayak.

I am sure some of the breaks in mine were from cartopping.

The 70 pounds quoted is way too high, my Putz kayaks weighed in at 33 and 27 pounds. They are average for a sof.

: * I deem it only a good means of introducing people to building the Putz.
: Most kayak builders build many kayaks in their life; let them learn a good
: building way from the start.

: Eric

For light use in flat water the kayak is great, and it is fun to build. I have let other people use the kayak, and the launched on a steep beach with the bow in the water and the stern on the shore, pieces cracked under the stress.

Mike