: I understood that. That is why I put in my $0.02, which is probably wrong,
: based on Ted's reply. It was always my opinion (based on no research, BTW,
: just blurbs I picked up here and there) that the reason CF was chosen for
: many applications requiring strong yet lightweight equipment was that it
: was pound for pound stronger (tensile strength) than FG. That would
: account for why a piece of equipment made from CF is lighter than the same
: piece made from FG.

By most measures CF does, as you say, have higher strength-to-weight ratio than other materials. But as Ted's data shows, that does mean that using the same weight of CF instead of glass will result in a stronger and lighter kayak. As Ted's great test shows, CF will be heavier. And at this point it is an open question if the result is stronger. Presumably it will be, but Ted's test didn't attempt to determine that.

Even if the hand-layed CF is stronger by the standard measurement techniques, that does not mean that a strip-built kayak covered with CF in such a manner that it weighs the same as glass will survive the vagaries of sea kayaking better than glass. Some of the abuse a kayak receives are not matched well by the strengths of CF.

Like any real-life structure the loads on a kayak are complex, CF is probably good for some of those loads, but other materials will work better in other situations.