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

He claimed "many factors" affect speed,
but length wasn't one of them.

Where exactly have I ever said that waterline length doesn't
affect speed? I said that overall length is not a usable
indicator because of the great variation between overall
length and waterline length. I demonstrated that with
a scatter graph of the two parameters for _real_ sea kayaks.

Mike

Michael Daly wrote:
Like offering some data that actually backs up you
ludicrous claim that what I am saying is false.

You already provided it yourself. After first making the claim that
there was "no correlation" between LOA and LWL, you later provided data
indicating that the correlation was 0.79 which clearly showed your
initial statement to be false. QED.

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

I
don't think anyone is going to deny that a kayak with a 18'
overall length
is going to have a longer waterline than a kayak with a 14'
overal length
=======================
Looks like Mike did. He claimed that overall length did not
correlate to waterline lenght.

Lookee, Lookee what I found on the web site that someone posted
with Sea Kayaker magazine data:

Prijon*Calabria Current Design Andromeda
LOA 4.42m (14.5ft) 5.26m (17.25ft)
LWL 3.96m (13 ft) 4.19m (13.75ft)
Drag 16.7 lb 18.0 lb

So here we have two _real_ sea kayaks, one that is more than 17 foot
long and another that is over 14 feet long (one 19% longer) yet
their waterline lengths are 13 and 13.75 feet respectively (one
only 6% longer).

Note in particular that the _shorter_ kayak has less resistance
at 4.5 knots.

Is this what you call a high correlation between LOA and LWL? Does
this prove that long kayaks are faster?

Mike

"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...

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

He claimed "many factors" affect speed,
but length wasn't one of them.

Where exactly have I ever said that waterline length doesn't
affect speed? I said that overall length is not a usable
indicator because of the great variation between overall
length and waterline length. I demonstrated that with
a scatter graph of the two parameters for _real_ sea kayaks.

Mike
======================
OK Not getting anywhere I see. You still won't/can't answer the
question I asked. Thanks anyway. I'll just wait or somebody
else, someday...

"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...

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.
====================
No I did not. I asked you to explain YOUR statement about the
"many factors" that affect speed other than length. You are the
one nit-picking on definitions.



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.
=================
Obviously you can't. thanks anyway. I'll wait for somebody else
to explain all those other factors someday. Obviously you can't.



Mike

I'm not sure what you mean by "Can the padding be removed from the seat?

I use a rudder if its windy,10 mph or more, otherwise no, don't need it.
I think you could get along in the Zoar with a skeg just as well.

"donquijote1954" wrote in message
oups.com...


Bub wrote:
Take a long look at the necky Zoar Sport. 14 foot boat w/rudder well
made
and stable. A little more boat then the Manitou. At $999 w/rudder, its
not
bad.
Bub


Thanks!

Two questions: Can the padding be removed from the seat? and, Do you
get to use the rudder/keg or is it a nuisance?

I'll quote something...

'The Zoar Sport is a brilliant little boat. At 14' it is a touring boat
rather than a true sea kayak but I have found with mine that: 1) it
handles very well on fla****er, keeping close to the longer, "faster"
boats; 2) it handles extremely well in surf (force five conditions); 3)
it is solid and durable; and above all 4) it is a comfortable fit (I am
6'4" 240 lbs). Great boat.'

On 17-Jun-2005, Peter wrote:

You already provided it yourself. After first making the claim that
there was "no correlation" between LOA and LWL, you later provided data
indicating that the correlation was 0.79 which clearly showed your
initial statement to be false. QED

I've already addressed that - the correlation is not sufficient to
allow for prediction of performance. You are ignoring that _fact_.

As a further indicator of the relevance of LOA as an indicator of
performance, let's look at the correlation between the lengths
and the drag for the kayaks already presented.

Correlation coefficient, LOA vs Drag: -0.35
Correlation coefficient, LWL vs Drag: -0.69

Clearly, an intelligent person would not use LOA as an indicator
of performance. This further shows that the correlation between
LOA and LWL is insufficiently high. It also shows that other
factors beyond just length dictate drag, otherwise the coefficient
for LWL vs drag would be higher.

For cranky ol' rick, I'll get to other factors later.

Mike

Bub wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "Can the padding be removed from the seat?

I use a rudder if its windy,10 mph or more, otherwise no, don't need it.
I think you could get along in the Zoar with a skeg just as well.


Thanks. I thought the rudder/skeg may be unnecessary in a kayak of that
lenght.

I don't like any padding on the seat because of my peeing. Current
Designs, for example, doesn't have any.

in article , Michael Daly at
wrote on 6/16/05 4:58 PM:


On 16-Jun-2005, "Keenan & Julie" wrote:

So, like, shorter boats are slower eh?

Not always - that's the point of this discussion.

Mike

So, like, sure, a shorter boat shaped like a cigar is probably faster than a
longer boat shaped like a square, eh?

But bravado and mensa-style chest-thumping aside, is it not flippingly
obvious that longer boats are fast than shorter boats if they otherwise
share the same design characteristics?

i initially thought michael was nit-picking a bit... but, in matters
technical, i've found he is worth listening to... after all of this,
i'm with him...

although, keenan, i think you're quite right when you assert "a shorter
boat shaped like a cigar is probably faster than a longer boat shaped
like a square"... too right!