On 16-Jun-2005, "rick" wrote:

Beause you've failed to make your case against the other sites I
have read.

How about - the sites you identified are irrelevant to the discussion.
Just because they talk about waterline length means nothing in the
context of comparing waterline length and overall length.

No, you did not answer the question I asked. You snipped it out,
and ignored it. Why is that?

Probably because your line of questions is not contributing to the
discussion. You just want to nit-pik on trivia.

The _fact_ is that overall length is not a reasonable indicator
of kayak performance. Waterline length may be, other factors
being equal. If you can't deal with that, there's nothing I can
do about it.

Mike