Modern 'Glass Boats: Can't Take A Punch?

I have an old Impex Susquehanna

– Last Updated: Dec-15-12 10:58 PM EST –

that is the same as the Formula Diamante they currently build. Those boats are not known for being particularly heavily built but they are pretty tough.

In the six years I have had mine, I have had a few mishaps. Once I ran it fully loaded with camping gear up onto a submerged stump with a pointed end where a tree had been knawed off by a beaver. When I got the boat off and once I saw what I had hit, I was amazed that it hadn't punch a hole through the hull. I also got caught by a wave once and slammed broadside into a piling and it only put a small crack in the gelcoat.

Pay through the nose unless you buy
from Kaz. Millbrook prices are hundreds of dollars below similar layups.

A Gabby Hayes who never read
Wallbridges “Boatbuilders Manual” and never paid real attention to how composite ww boats hold up with abuse that sea kayaks need ten years to accumulate. (Tsunami Rangers and heedless klutzes excepted.)



He brings out the old water soaking into the laminate baloney. I’ve owned a bunch of ww composite boats, FG, S-glass, carbon, Nylon, Kevlar, and I’ve never had a boat gain water weight.



It is hard to find a copy of the Boatbuilders Manual, so let me just say that quantitative tests were done on a variety of layups available in the 80s, and the best four layer layup was SS/KK, where S = S-glass and K = Kevlar. The S-glass goes on the outside of the boat. Kevlar is not an outside cloth.



My first c-1 was made with multiple layers of FG, and a single layer of polypropylene. It weighed over 50 pounds, and it broke repeatedly, especially underneath the stern where it thumped going over ledges. Now I have an SS/KK Millbrook C-1, weighs only about 28 pounds, and it doesn’t break.

What I’ve Seen…
in my corner of the world is old steel frames put back into service. For quite a while it was popular to get an old steel Centurion or Fuji and turn it into a single speed or fixed gear. A couple weeks back I saw a Centurion on a car that had really weird handlebars; like someone had turned it into a track bike.

Not just the material for bikes
Some of it is the ride. For example, when I went looking for my last bike there was still no aluminum ride that had the feeling I liked from steel, and the carbon fiber bikes were all over the ball park in that area. I got steel, the only change I would have made a couple of years later would have been to go for titanium.



Racers would not have any use for the bike I got - frame angles all wrong for a sprint and too heavy. But compared to what it replaced, a decent bike in its own right that the local bike rescue group has made good use of, it was super light and responsive. It took me a few rides before I was no longer veering towards a tree at every turn because the balance was lighter towards the front end.



AS to kayaks - the balance point is between time to repair and material. Someone who regularly beats the heck out of their boat on rocks is going to tolerate a different choice in materials than someone who paddles areas that are easy on the boat to start with.

depends
There are manufacturers that stuck to the old ways of making boats while cutting down on resin and gelcoat. That did not have good effect on hull resistance, since in the good old days resin and gelcoat were an essential part of boat’s construction.



And then there are some, such as Necky, TideRace, that actually know what they are doing and minimizing amount of resin without sacrificing rigidity and impact resistance of their hulls.

Steel is still queen in bikes
King is titanium for weight to strength, and both are very good at absorbing shock. They can be made stiffer where you want power to drive, and flexier where you want vibration absorption. Both of them wear long and hard, unlike aluminum, which isn’t too shock absorbant and doesn’t last all that long if run hard.



Carbon fiber can be made to do all that and can be laid up more creatively, but manufacturers are still afraid of liability, so they overbuild them making them weigh more than the have to. And as to CF, I would not want it in my bike in the fork. Many manufacturers include warning labels on CF forks that would scare the shit out of you - and they should, IMHO.



As to glass, CF and kevlar in kayaks, I’m reading that the kevlar, lightest of all and usually damn tough, is not as strong in this use as CF, and CF is not as strong as regular fiberglass. But if you watch the guys who do some of the toughest kayaking - whitewater and rock gardening - they almost always go for poly, because it’s that much tougher and withstands damages well.



I know well why weight is such a factor (not the only important one, BTW) in bikes. Other than for carrying, I’m not at all sure it’s so critical in kayaks, even for long distances. I do understand why it could be for canoes, but that’s the same carrying/portaging issue.


Segment of the Market
Among road bikers who race or ride for fitness (rat-racers / club riders) steel is not queen… at least not in my corner of the world. By far the material of choice is carbon fiber. Distant 2nd would be aluminum (mostly Cannondales). I see a smattering of titanium and steel bikes. In my group steel is more like a duchess. I ride a steel frame that can’t be had anymore. The maker switched to carbon because of demand.

I agree with SS/KK
Best combination for weight, impact resistance and scrape resistance.



Carbon is good as the outer layer instead of the S glass for lightweight lake paddling with heavy wallets.

Necky and Tiderace…
…aren’t both their boats produced in Thailand, by Cobra?

And yet, steel keeps hanging around…
There’s been a number of smaller companies springing up over the past decade or two - names like Surly, SOMA, Rivendell, Jamis, Kona, Velo-Orange, Handsome, All-City, etc- and older names such as Raleigh that have been doing well with their steel bike lines.



They don’t seem to be going away. And these are new bikes, not used steel bikes being re-purposed as fixies by the hipsters.



There’s definitely a steel segment out there, and while most of the really big bike companies (Trek, Cannondale, Giant) aren’t serving it beyond a rare steel model or two (i.e. Trek 520), a number of smaller ones are catering to it successfully.



And why shouldn’t they? Not everyone digs carbon’s ride, price, or aesthetics, or they read about a ‘stupid-light’ carbon fork snapping on someone and they get nervous.



Probably the only frame material that could potentially make everyone happy is titanium, but Ti requires a lot of skilled labor to work it, and thus will probably never be cheap enough to be mass-popular.



It’s largely a carbon-fiber market (at least above a certain price point) because CF isn’t all that expensive to produce yet the big bike companies can charge more for it (i.e. nice margins), and because all the racing teams are paid to ride it (marketing). But that doesn’t mean that CF is going to be the only frame material going forward.



Alas, alack, and despite the hype.

Light, strong, inexpensive…
Pick any two!



That’s been true in the bike world. It hasn’t changed.



It applies to the boat world equally well.

Therefore , Hence, Consequently,
If the kayak industry follows the trend of the bike industry, more and more boats will get lighter and lighter. A segment, albeit a small, one will opt for heavier boats for price and strength reasons.

What planet do YOU live on?

– Last Updated: Dec-16-12 5:41 PM EST –

Sorry, but I have to take issue here. For the record, I own steel, aluminum, titanium and carbon fiber bikes.

Carbon Fiber (CF):
In terms of strength/weight/stiffness, carbon fiber wins hands-down; metals simply cannot compete. Additionally, you can tailor the stiffness of a CF frame in ways that are simply impossible with metal tubing. From a pure performance standpoint carbon fiber has no equal, which is why essentially all professional racing teams, road and off-road, ride CF bikes. Recently, manufacturers have been putting a lot of emphasis in making CF bikes that are more suitable for recreational riders, for whom comfort is a key consideration. I bought my first CF frame in 1979, the second in 1995 and the third and forth at the end of last season. The evolution of CF has taken a long time, but it's been dramatic.

That said, there are three areas where carbon is less than optimum:

1- Carbon fiber has low abrasion resistance, so it needs to be protected against it. This doesn't seem to be a major issue with bikes, but it could be in the case of a loose/broken spoke causing tire rub on the frame.

2- Carbon fiber has a somewhat unforgiving failure mode. It doesn't dent or bend like metals will, it cracks or breaks. While it's not an issue in normal riding, it can be problematic in accidents.

3- It's expensive, although that seems to be improving slowly. It's likely to get better in the near future, as global carbon fiber production capacity increases.

Titanium (Ti):
I loved my titanium bikes and rode them for many years (I still have both frames, in case I ever want to set one up again). Ti is arguably the best of all the metals. It's impervious to rust (unlike steel) or corrosion (unlike aluminum). It doesn't fatigue the way aluminum does. It's lighter than steel, though heavier than aluminum. However, it's much stronger than aluminum, so in frames, there's little difference in weight. It can provide the same type of resilient ride that steel does, with better vibration damping.

The major downside to Ti is the price, which is similar to CF. It can't be built as stiff as CF without being considerably heavier.

Aluminum (Al):
Aluminum is the lightest of the three metals and can be built into the lightest metal frames. It's also much cheaper than carbon fiber or Ti. However, aluminum has three significant issues:

- Fatigue is a problem if Al frames are allowed to flex, which forces manufacturers to make their Al frames very stiff, in an effort to extend their fatigue life. That adds weight. I still have my '77 Klein Team Super and it's still in good shape, but it probably only has 10-12K miles on it. I have had a swingarm break on an Al mountain bike.

- Aluminum is only 1/3 as stiff as steel. In order to make a stiff Al frame without making it heavy, you have to use large diameter tubing with thin walls, which makes them prone to denting and "beer can" failures.

- Aluminum will corrode, particularly if it comes into contact with another material such as CF or steel (such as a seatpost). Al-Al joints can also corrode. This can be particularly problematic in coastal areas and when bikes are ridden on salt-covered roads in winter.

Basically, the lighter you make an Al frame, the shorter its lifespan. This is why most Al frames have short warranties. However, recent developments in hydroforming Al have helped to overcome some of its shortcomings and it seems to be gaining some traction in the market again.

Steel:
Steel it relative inexpensive and has a resilient ride that many riders prefer. It's also popular among people who prefer the "classic" look of skinny tubes. I've owned steel bikes since before AL, Ti and CF hit the market. Steel suffers from some serious disadvantages:

- Steel is the heaviest of the frame materials. In order to make an even reasonably light frame, you have to sacrifice stiffness. It's just not in the same league as the other material when it comes to stiffness-to-weight ratio and never will be.

- Steel rusts, which means you have to paint it and maintain the finish. It also means that you have to be aware of condensation and water infiltration into the seat & chain stays, the seat tube and the bottom bracket. That means using a product like "Frame Saver", which is like automotive rustproofing in a can. The newer stainless steels can eliminate this issue, but at a significant increase in price that puts them in the range of Ti and CF.

While steel lovers are found of claiming that it's experiencing some kind of resurgence, they've been making that claim for decades and it still hasn't happened. While steel is not going away, it's a bit-player in the market and will remain that way.

The bottom line is that people ride whatever they like best in their price range. That often has little to do with performance comparison and everything to do with personal preference.

It’s also apparent…
…that he doesn’t know how to repair 'glass boats, either.

2nd, 3rd and 4th that

You can have your CF, IMO
I won’t ever go for a CF fork, period! You gotta be kidding. You know from what you wrote that its failure is dramatic and highly dangerous. Even the manufacturers warn you to have it inspected any time it takes a bruise, whether or not you can see any evidence of damage.



All its virtues I said the same as you. All Aluminum’s vitures and Ti as well, I said the same as you. Steel is still a wonderful alternative when you want a less expensive frame (and especially a fork) that is less prone to failure, can be made stiff or a bit forgiving too. Don’t count the duchess out; she’s still royalty.



Ti is best of all. What makes it expensive is more than that it’s labor intensive. It requires a special atmosphere in order to weld it. So it’s a slow going process with a not cheap material using expensive equipment to work it.



CF is a wondrous material with lots of great uses in many fields. Aviation, audio, automobiles, just to name a few of hundreds at least. I’m not knocking CF, just pointing out that it is NOT the be all and end all that many bikers think it is due to clever marketing, which you also seem to recognize.



Roadies especially worship light weight, and may sacrifice safety for that goal; road racers certainly do. What’s really ironic was written up in the bike mags 20 years ago: It costs far less and is far more effective to lose weight on your body than on your bike! And the most dramatic difference on a bike is what you carry on your wheel assembly, not on your frame.



I’m not at all sure that, other than for portaging, weight in a kayak is quite as dramatic in effect in the water as poundage on a bicycle wheelset. On that I’m willing to be corrected.

steel bikes
Many many small frame fabricators are working exclusively in steel. And it isn’t at the detriment to CF, but rather for the strength to weight ratio for the COST, steel wins hands down. And the resurgence of all the interest in fixies, and hand-built bikes has created a resurgence of steel frames. It’s what all the cool kids in skinny jeans are buying!



Almost every college town has 3-4 bike shops with at least two custom frame makers you’ve never heard of. I even have two friends who make custom bikes. Not saying this is scientific, and does it make up for all of the giant’s and treks made in aluminum or cf, no… but there are lots of new bikes made in steel.


Please elaborate on Kaz and Millbrook

Mike Appel
I have a custom Mike Appel steel road bike from the early 80s and can’t bear to part with it even though I don’t ride much any more. He used tubing from various makers so as to tune the bike to its purpose and rider–no tubing maker decals on his bikes. Before getting this frame, I road a Cannondale. Took several minutes off my 25 mile TT with the new frame. Have ridden a lot of off the shelf bikes over the years and never found anything I liked better probably because the Appel was perfectly set up just for me…