BEST PLASTIC SEA KAYAKS

trade-offs
While A foam bulkhead can flex with the hull or deck it is not appropriate to brace against. Welded bulkheads can be braced against as you would in a composite boat. I would imagine that the solid welded bulkheads add more stiffness than epoxied foam ones.

concave welded bulkheads
The plastic Valley boat we have has concave welded bulkheads, so no noticeable hard spot.



Perhaps there’s a downside that I’m missing, but I’d much rather have welded bulkheads than foam. Foam bulkheads all leak eventually, and you can’t brace on them.

Foam attachment
Can’t agree that all foam bulkheads eventually leak. My experience recently being P&H. Formerly the system was of welded in plastic bulkheads. Very strong. Actually perhaps too much as wear marks concentrate on the exterior of the hull along the bulkheads. The current Corelite 3 layer material is a tad lighter than the older version. This doesn’t put up with the heat of electrical welding as well so the foam is chemically fused to the inner surface. Individual results may vary but from the various P&H/Pyrahna/Venture Scorpios, Capellas and Fusions that have been in the Fleet, no problems to date.



Ok that used up a cup of coffee.





See you on the water,

Marshall

The River Connection, Inc.

Hyde Park, NY

www.the-river-connection.com

Eddyline

– Last Updated: Jan-20-11 8:42 AM EST –

Eddylines are great boats! Their manufacturing and construction are top notch and they have designs that will fit your needs. Customer service is beyond compare but you will seldom if ever need it.

I have had a Nighthawk 17.5 in Modulus for about 6 years now. The 17.5 "might" be just a little large for you since I'm 6'3" and weigh about 275 and even I still have room in it. Depends on what type of fit you like. However, you may want to go with one of their models with the large size cockpit, since I can't get in the NH16, as great a boat as it is, but it should work for you. The Journey is a little short but has a larger cockpit and is one you definately should try. Unfortunately the Fathom is the right length, and plenty of volume, but has a smaller cockpit opening, but if you can fit comfortably in a NH16 it may be a good consideration.

The material is tough. Unfortunately, I found out how tough this past year when I torpedo lanched my boat down a paved driveway off of the top my Jeep where it slid under another car. I thought it had had it. But, except for a few scratches that polished out (and the car's hood) everything is OK.

Thanks
That’s good to hear. I hope to add a Delphin to the fleet soon, and while the bulkhead material certainly wasn’t going to change my decision, I’m encouraged to hear that the P&H bulkheads are holding up better than their North American counterparts. I’ve seen so many Necky, LL Bean, Perception, etc kayaks with leaking or completely displaced foam bulkheads over the years.

Slush, nothing compares to roto as far
as durability is concerned. My problem with roto is mostly the weight. Roto tends to fuzz up and I also do not care for that. Finally, roto will deflect more and cause a loss of forward movement because of it, they simply are not as efficient. All of this applies, for me, to longer sea kayaks. The failure mode for thermal formed kayaks is different from any other material. Failure “usually” results in a crack or fracture. This crack is easily repaired with commercially available glues and adhesives. A more serious fracture resulting in the loss of a “piece” of the boat is far less likely, and far more difficult to deal with. Coming down hard on a rock in the cockpit area can result in a crack to the hull. Dropping the boat, or hitting something hard, both in cold weather can create a failure of some kind. Thermal formed is not for high abuse types of paddling like white water or rock gardening ( IN MY OPINION). The new Rockpool boats are thicker than the typical Eddyline material and as such may be far more resistant to these issues. Outside of dropping the boat in cold weather, anything that damages a thermal formed boat will likely also damage a composite boat. The repair is almost always easier, but the final cosmetic result will not be as good in the thermal formed boat. You will spend $100’s getting the composite boat fixed, versus about $.25 in glue on the thermal formed (provided there are not pieces broken out). The thermal formed boat will take alot of abuse and come out of it looking much better than the composite. I really like the thermal formed boats and am waiting for one of the manufacturers to sponsor me :slight_smile: If you plan on bouncing down a rock filled river, forget it. Roto is the only way to go for this. I don’t fit in the Alaw Bach or I would own one. The newer model Fathom is a fantastic boat and I hope to have one someday. My only gripe on the Fathom is the height of the foredeck, it makes it comfortable, but it is just a tad high in proportion to the rest of the boat. It will be interesting to see if Valley has Eddyline make their new hull in thermal formed, and if Rockpool has them make another design larger than the Alaw Bach. My feeling is that once the higher quality thermal formed boats get a critical mass of momentum in the market, they could become the dominate form of construction. Bill

At 6’3" 250 lbs I have plenty of room
in the Fathom. I remove the hip pads on the coaming verticals and find it fits really well. With the newer low back deck, this boat is a great performer for various rolls and is easy to re-enter. The Fathom has a ton of cockpit and hatch room and is a very efficient hull form. I wish I owned one, Blue deck/white hull, or white/white. :slight_smile: Bill

that’s what I dislike about poly also
Much of it is aesthetic, but some of it is the weight. It seems that in order to get a rigid enough poly you are looking at a build like Valley has. Which is heavier. I’m not sure if the poly Valley boats are as flexy as, say, a perception kayak.

The fact that a british builder like Rockpool is using thermoform interests me because we know what kind of conditions the brits have at their disposal. So Rockpool must have some confidence in the material.

I love my Aquanaut RM LV, but the
roto construction is a challenge for me as far as weight and efficiency go. Everything else about this boat is absolutley fantastic. I abuse the hell out of it and all it does is treat me like a king in return. I cannot say enough good about the boat. Now, having said this, I could replace it and my Romany S with a new Fathom. The Fathom would have the durability of the Naut along with its roll friendly traits, and the storage and off wind/wave manners of the Romany S, all in a boat that is faster than both of them. Do you like the psychotic manner in which I talk myself into another boat, a good boat whore will do that:) Bill

Smaller Nighthawk coming
I emailed Eddyline a few months ago about the possibility of a high volume boat between the Journey and the Nighthawk. I was written back by the owner (Tom- can’t remember his last name) that they’re reworking the Nighthawk. As I remember, it’s supposed to be smaller. It’s supposed to come out sometime this year.

Deflection?
I’ve heard again and again about loss of efficiency in roto boats due to flex/deflection, etc. How much of this is myth? The Valley RM boats that I’ve “tested” (pushing down hard on the hull) seem to have no more deflection than the composites. I know that a Prijon hull actually deflects less than my 46 lb Mariner.

Probably "snake oil"
about the deflection as it relates to tripping speeds. I got no numbers but I just can’t imagine anyone being able to tell a difference in efficiency due to flex. One can feel flex in certain situation but does that mean the boat is perceptibly or measurably slower for that?



The real stopper, pun intended, I think is the fuzzyness that develops with hard use on rocks and sand. That can be dealt with (shave, melted, smoothed) but never as smooth as composite or thermoformed plastic.



Weight - that can’t be dealt with. A heavy boat will require more energy to deal with no matter what - thatks more to accelerate at each stroke, more to steer, sinks deeper for more drag, harder to get to and from the water…


don’t forget repairability
For me one of the reasons to buy composite boats is because they can be repaired more easily. Also, they don’t abrade as easily as plastic, so for some uses they’re a lot more durable than rotomolded.

Respectfully disagree Griffin
I can’t recall one Valley boat cracking at the bulkhead weld. Could be wrong, but just haven’t seen or heard of such. Your reply sounds like a competitive marketing line Vs a valid engineering point. Having been an R&D guy in the business I will share my opinion, for what it’s worth?: The welding process is very tough when done correctly but involves a special meash wire screen that gets charged electrically so as to melt the poly together. Too much juice and burn-out, too little = poor bond. Done right = great bulkhead! Most manufacturers favor foam because it’s easy, fast, works well, and is cost effective = more margin and simplified manufacturing = smart. This does not mean that Valley’s approach is weaker. Having messed with all approaches, I’d personally opt for welded bulkheads such as Valley’s. If I built and sold 50,000 poly kayaks a year I’d use foam…



Having said that, I’d buy whatever kayak fit me the best and I enjoyed paddling the most and I’d live with whatever system they employed. Really doesn’t matter much, except for internet forums.

It is not snake oil. Of this I am sure.
It is also not about pushing on the deck of a roto boat to see how it moves. Take my carbon/kevlar Nordkapp and pick it up at both ends with two people and jerk it up and down. Now do the same thing with a roto Nordkapp. That flex over the length of the boat is what is robbing you of speed on the waves. If the water is calm, there is likely to be no real difference provided the coefficient of friction is the same. The movement lost in flex is lost in forward travel and it also changes the profile of the wetted surface. You will also see a more noticeable difference in acceleration. During my windsurfing days, the change from plastic hulls to carbon was like night and day in terms of acceleration and speed. The Eddyline made thermal formed boats are highly rigid and thus do not suffer from this issue. If these things matter to you, test the difference, if not, ignore it. Either way it is real.

Bill

Makes some sense, but…
I’m not sure waggling a boat from both ends on land is the same as loading it on water. Do plastic boats really go banana shaped in the water with the weight of the paddler? I’d like to see some vigorous testing of the claim that plastic boats are less rigid, particularly in respect to the newer plastics. Composite hulls do flex some: that is what all the popular hammer tests show.



I think the real difference is in weight, which affects acceleration and speed over the long haul.

not 17 feet but darned sea worthy
http://kayakcamping.amongstit.com/2011/01/18/ted-keys-video-of-the-inuit-being-paddled-through-lava-falls/



check out this video to see a Native Inuit 14.5 and see for yourself if it’s tough enough. Plenty of room for 2-3 day trips although these guys did over a week. Gotta wait a minute before you’ll see the Inuit run Lava Falls.

What do you think two waves do when
they pick up a boat? I don’t think “vigorous testing” is needed to understand that hull flex is detrimental to a hulls efficiency. Again, I suggested that if someone is concerned about this, they need only test a hull that is offered in roto and composite. My Nordkapp example is exactly what I did. I also said that the Eddyline thermal formed boats are highly rigid, thus stating that there are rigid hull alternatives in plastic. Bill

Fair enough…
I guess I would just be curious to know how much deflection? At what weight? Over what hull length? For a total loss of efficiency of what percent?



We measure everything else with our kayaks.

re test
Are you quite sure that the hulls are identical?



Plastic shrinks as it cools, making a mold to produce a hull identical to composite layup is non trivial. Going the other way - making a mold based on plastic kayak to produce composite boat - is much easier, but I am quite sure only Jackson has done it (maybe) for their playboat.



I hope Salty chimes in.