Old aluminum vs. new Ram-X

Advice
#41

Seats - Good Grief!

– Last Updated: Sep-16-10 6:17 PM EST –

Are there no limits to the way you will stretch your interpretation of these things? So far there are none.

All seats in canoes "costing thousands more" can be adjusted to suit your needs. Sure, seats that adjust on the fly are rare, but I'm talking about making the boat fit the needs of the paddler. With traditional seats, it only takes simple hand tools and a few minutes of your time put the seat at whatever height and whatever angle you desire, and there's no conceivable way that you don't already know that if you've been on this site as long as you have. Also, kneeling in a canoe is NOT restricted to solo canoes at all, and it was the normal practice for decades in tandem canoes before the average person ever had a chance to see a solo canoe simply because the style barely even existed. I have no doubt that you are aware of that too. To think otherwise makes no sense, especially with all that experince you have.

I'm a long way from being the first person on these boards to knock the lack of versatility of those huge, box-like seats that are bonded to the floor so you can't kneel and which can't be altered in any way (short tearing them out and replacing them). So, I ask if this super-comfortable seat might meet the needs of the average serious paddler by posing a simple question and look what happens. You throw convention out the window just so you can be right and I can be wrong.

Anyway, my Pam_14 analogy was in reference to the way that for every aspect of your favorite canoe that is the way it is simply due to cutting costs for the mass market, you manage to find a way of saying it's the best thing ever. I thought you might understand that. My mistake.

#42

If you are saying that the Coleman
Ram-X is a better canoe than a aluminum canoe, then you don’t know diddly squat about either of them !



Jack L

#43

Old Town Seats
The blow moulded seats used in the Discovery series do allow kneeling. they are thicker and heavier than the usual Old town cane seats. They do offer greater durability and increased floatation when swamped. Both good things for outfitters. Pilotwngz will think they also make the canoe float higher in the water cause they are bouyant; but their extra 5 pounds of weight will add to the total hull weigh and displacement. When swamped they do help to keep the hull upright. All the hull floatation from the core tends to make a swamped Discovery turn over. The bouyant core in the hull bottom wants to rise to the surface.

Guess we need to assembly a Lowe Aluminum canoe and a Discovery 169 with rotomoulded seats and put them in the water and measure the displacement depth.

I checked all the old Aluminum brochures and the old 1990 buyers guides. 17’ aluminum hulls from 0.040" aluminum weighed in the mid 60’s. 0.060" aluminum hulls were at 80# depending on the number of ribs and the keel. The Grumman and Michicraft livery hulls with 0.060" hulls and WW rib layout were the heaviest, around the 85# weight of a Discovery 169. And the 169 weight is 85# with cane seats. There has been no change in the Old Town published weight since they went to rotomoulded seats. Its been the same for them in their royalex canoes; the Penobscot published weight is with aluminum trim and cane seats, not the standard vinyl gunwales.

But all this Discovery vs Aluminum stuff is not what the OP asked. His question was Lowe aluminum vs. Pelican Dakota; and the Dakota is a very different canoe from the Disovery. It is akin to the Rockport.

Guideboatguy, thank you for your attempt at explaining the bouyancy physics. Pilotwingz is missing it about the foam core not doing a darn thing till the hull swamps. The hull could be made of stainless steel; if the shape and weight are the same; the floating displacement will be identical.

May the Original Poster enjoy his Lowe and later we can totally baffle him with our preferences in more advanced hulls.

Bill

#44

what , are you another one jackl …

– Last Updated: Sep-16-10 11:34 PM EST –

...... who can't read what I said ??

If I wanted to say the little ol Coleman RamX 15' is a better canoe than an aluminum canoe ... that's what I would have said .

I did not say that did I ??

The aluminum canoe has "some" favorable advantages over the Coleman RamX . In the same breath I will say that the little Coleman RamX 15' has advantages over the aluminum canoe also .

As for your concern that I may not know diddly squat about either of them ... I know all that needs be known about both of them , that from experience and plain common sense . So what do think about that jackl , satisfy your reading into words that aren't there , written or spoken .

Some people hear another say something that was spoken clearly , directly and understandable ... and they have the ability to believe the person meant something other than what was said . Are you one of those type people with that ability jackl ??

The attitude you just directed towards me in your post was arrogant . If you had wished to know whether or not I believe a Coleman RamX is a better canoe than an aluminum ... you could of simply asked as opposed to acting like a knucklehead . And just because you opened your arrogance with the word "IF" , does not excuse you in my book . I think you have "assumed too much" .

1 Like
#45

gbg , you ask if the Oldtown seats

– Last Updated: Sep-16-10 11:05 PM EST –

..... were adjustable . I said no they are not adjustable . They are fixed position .

They can be repositioned in the same way as the wood frame seats in expensive canoes can be . They can be lowered . They can be tilted , etc. , they can be moved forward and rearward , I call that repositioning because it requires changes . They can be swapped out for a different style seat as well if one desires . They are not adjustable as in sliding or IQ type as I previously mentioned .

The Oldtown seats are fastened to gunnels by through bolt , pretty much the same way the wood frame seats in canoes costing thousands more are .

What are you talking about floor mounted box style seats for ?? You asked about the Oldtown seats I mentioned as if you don't know what they are , how they attach , what can be done with them .

You understand what there is to understand about the Oldtown seats , don't you ??

Again you act like a knucklehead making degtading accusations about me , gbg (knock , knock , knock) . I'm not stretching anything in my interpretation as you have claimed ... I spoke about Oldtown seats , made some seat observations and wrote some about those observations in a post on this thread ... simple as that , no stretch , no dramatization , no fiction , no mind game , no illusion , no animation , no "hidden" meanings .

1 Like
#46

you act like a knucklehead also pp …
… pilot would not think the floataion in the seats would make the canoe float higher (unless swamped) .



Did you say the bouyant core in the Oldtown wants to rise to the surface ??



Hmmm , the bouyant core wants to rise to the surface . Does that help the hull float higher in the water with an X payload ?? Does that mean the hull material itself has bouyancy beyond the displacement factor ??


1 Like
#47

I’ve offered about as many things …
… as I am aware of , thoughts for consideration , as to why the OP might want to consider other canoes , other palstic constructions (OT’s 3 Layer Superlinear Polyethylene , Royalex , or other similar canoe constructions) , other than either the Aluminum or Pelican .



I think the OP has a right to hear the comparison things I’ve mentioned and the explanations of them .



nosirrahg , if you purchase the aluminum canoe , I believe you will enjoy it very much and wish you good journeys …


1 Like
#48

I am sorry to say I read the whole thrd.
Pilot, you don’t know WTF you are talking about. From what a good paddling canoe is, all the way to how buoyancy works. For you, I think it is STFU and learn before you pipe up. Your facts aren’t facts, your opinions are puerile.



I agree with the idea it doesn’t sound like you have enough experience to gauge what you are talking about. It really sounds like you are arguing these points to defend your own decisions rather than offer seasoned advice. Not long ago you were here asking questions as an unabashed novice, now you’re purporting to know what’s what. I think you don’t know enough to know what you don’t know.

#49

Your words -Not mine !
"it’s just not going to be as tough as the old Grummans are , but in many ways I feel it’s the superior canoe by a large margin ".



Jack L


#50

good enough jackl ,
… in “many” ways I feel the little Coleman RamX 15’ is a superior canoe by a large margin .



And in many ways it is … most of which have already been mentioned here by myself . If you’d like to discuss my reasoning behind that statement , we could do that .



The little Coleman is good paddler with a light load . It’s single layer plastic hull is tough and I have yet to see one all twisted up , to the contrary they have all been straight and undeformed . It is a single piece “plastic” hull with tubular reinforcement . It has a number of the advantages of plastic over aluminum construction (not all , but a number of them) .



Just checked the reviews here on p.net about the Coleman RamX 15 , about 43 of them rate it an 8-10 . The be fair , about 8 of them rate it a 4 or less .


1 Like
#51

you’ve said “nothing” kanoo …

– Last Updated: Sep-17-10 2:30 PM EST –

....... all you've done is make degrading broad sweep statements towards me , and have offered nothing to support them other than your arrogance . The words you've choosen to address me are fighting words (STFU) , instigating pushing words ... in person I'd insist you back them up ...

I first paddled a canoe in 71 ... since that time have spent many miles and hours paddling . I own 2 canoes (both Oldtowns , one 3 Layer Super Linear , the other Royalex) , and have paddled about 9-10 different ones , spending enough time in each to know enough about them . I've "never" asked questions here as you say "like an unabashed novice" ... I have asked a few questions about some things , but very very few , canoes are not a difficult thing to understand , they are simple things . Paddling a canoe is not a difficult thing , it's a simple thing (heavy WW and freestyle are not included in that statement because they are advanced disaplines , niether of which skills have I aquired) .

You made the statement "your facts aren't facts " ... another broadsweep useless comment . What "facts" in particular do you speak of , and what factual opposition do you have to offer in support of your opinion ... I will support my words with further explanation than has already been offered if you want .

I came on p.net in 06 , and know the difference between a knucklehead like yourself and someone who has something useful to add to a conversation . I could make degrading broadsweep statements about you as well , but that would offer nothing of worth and then I would be acting like a knucklehead .

For your information I do know what a good paddling canoe is . And here is a clue , a good paddling canoe has to be well suited to what it is being used for , the enviroment it is in , and not all use enviroments are the same . What has favorable advantages in one enviroment can be the worst possible canoe in another .

High end super light expensive canoes can easily fall into worst possible canoe choice .

1 Like
#52

Most reviewers over-rate their boats.
As to hull materials, one way to tell is to see what people are using for deep Arctic expeditions. Another is to see what the really serious whitewater creekers are using. Neither Ram-X nor Old Town-like poly sandwiches are showing up in those environments.



They’re good materials for inexpensive boats, made for people who don’t know how to do repairs and don’t want to know.



What was it you were saying about the handling of the Coleman 15? Do you think you would stand by that statement if you paddled the full Esquif line? I think you would end up chucking spears at that Coleman.

#53

The answer to both questions is “no”

– Last Updated: Sep-17-10 10:42 AM EST –

What plaidpaddler says makes perfect sense if you understand what he's talking about, and you don't. In the end, bouyancy is affected by the "effective density" of the floating object, a term I'll use to substitute for the genuine explanations already provided. Density is mass/volume, and you still don't understand the huge difference between the mass/volume of an enclosed hull that is "keeping the water out" and mass/volume of a swamped hull that is fully immersed. The mass in both instances is exactly the same, but difference in total volume between the two situations is many orders of magnitude. End of story.

#54

Okay, I misunderstood that part
All of the “contoured” plastic seats I’ve seen in Old Towns have been box-like structures going all the way to the floor, glued to the hull around the whole perimeter of the seat. I assumed that since you were talking about these seats as if there is a whole lot of floatation in there, and in that style, that’s true. I’ve seen plenty of Old Towns with that kind of seat construction, and I don’t like them. Anyway, none of this changes the fact that your interpretation is complete nonsense, that bouyant materials carried inside a sealed hull, whether they are seats or even the hull material itself, somehow make the hull float higher. It really appears that you are willing to ignore the laws of physics so that you can invent your own reasons to view all these cost-cutting features as something special that can’t be found on better boats.

#55

g2d , I said …

– Last Updated: Sep-17-10 10:41 AM EST –

...... the little Coleman is a good paddler with a light load . It does Ok .

Do I think it has all the refined hydrodynamic characteristics of a highly efficient canoe design ... no not at all , but it is good little paddler .

I doubt I would chuck spears at the Coleman ... I'm sure I would see the merits of both the little Coleman and the Esquif high end fleet .

1 Like
#56

gbg , I pretty much agree with …

– Last Updated: Sep-17-10 3:41 PM EST –

....... everything you've said about bouyancy . I believe you have stated the principle well . I have "NOT" disagreed with anything you've stated about bouyancy (at least I don't think I have). I have understood all you have stated about bouyancy and it has been in agreement to all I have previously understood about bouyancy .

I still feel there is something concerning the floatation core (like in the Oldtowns) that has not been accounted for in this discussion that relates directly to the bouyancy force equation , and how the canoe will float higher in the water under a given load X , than if that floatation core were not there (as in an identical shape/displacement aluminum) .

Perhaps my belief "is not" applicable in any way to the bouyancy equation , but I am not convinced it is not ... even understanding what I do about the principles of bouyancy (and yes I have studied on it a number of times in the past as well as recent to this conversation) , I still feel there is a missing link , other information that accounts for the floatation core's ability to support X load higher in the water .

I believe you feel there is "no way" that the floatation core can aid in the bouyancy equation unless the intire hull or some portion of it's interior is submerged and surrounded by the water .

If there "is not" unaccounted for information that would support my belief , then I may have an incorrect belief .

One thing seems pretty certain to me though , and I feel you would fully agree ... partially swamp the Oldtown , say half full of water , and it will float higher (more free board) than a canoe (aluminum) that hasn't the full hull floatation core . And that at the least is good thing , an advantage .

1 Like
#57

Sorry, that boat does not reach "OK"
for me. Especially with many better alternatives on the used boat market. I guess I’ve been spoiled. I once picked up a used Mad River Guide with extensive outfitting and a snap on spray cover for $400.

#58

Just a point that may have escaped
some about linear poly canoes… There are a few very serious whitewater open canoes made in linear poly. They are always amongst the smallest on the market. The reason is that linear poly is not a particularly stiff material, but if it is used for short, rounded whitewater open canoes, it is stiff enough, just as it is for whitewater, touring, and sea kayaks.



The problem comes when a company tries to make and market a “normal” size canoe, like a 15’ Coleman, made of linear poly. The material isn’t stiff enough for the size and shape of the design, so the company has to add internal aluminum support, and then the boat still isn’t stiff enough.



The next step, as we know, was to make normal size canoes out of sandwich, outer layers of linear poly with a poly foam in between. These are a lot stiffer for their weight, but for some of us, not stiff enough. And such poly foam sandwiches can warp if owners don’t handle and cartop them properly.



It would be possible to do a near arctic expedition in an Old Town Discovery. The poly sandwich material is very tough. Such a canoe will not be much heavier to portage than the equivalent design in Royalex. But if catastrophic damage DOES occur, a Royalex boat is more amenable to field repairs than a Discovery.



I would be OK about the OP buying either the Pelican or the aluminum boat. I just hope that, before he does, he stumbles onto a nice buy on a 16+ foot Royalex boat.

#59

well , I wouldn’t purchase a …

– Last Updated: Sep-17-10 4:06 PM EST –

...... a Coleman RamX 15 for myself either (at least I can't envision any reason I'd want to do so) , same as I wouldn't encourage another to purchase an aluminum or Pelican ... I have encouraged the OP to seek other options as well , gave some examples of what I paid for both the OT Expedition new , and the OT Royalex used .

But the little Coleman 15 is still an OK paddler in my book for a light load in smaller areas , back waters , etc. where one doesn't need to paddle to far for too long . The things that make a canoe need more advantages are pretty useless in those smaller benign enviroments .

1 Like
#60

One final attempt to expain

– Last Updated: Sep-18-10 12:02 AM EST –

The problem with this whole discussion is that you have not actually been applying the principles of buoyancy to the internal floatation in the hull of your canoe. You know that the stuff floats, but you are forgetting that it only floats by displacing water. Therefore, when it is part of a floating boat, its weight is fully supported by the water and therefore it must displace a volume of water having a weight that is equal to the weight of the floatation material itself. The only way it can displace that much water while an integral component of a floating boat is to depress the hull of that boat into the water a little deeper, enough to displace a quantity of water having a weight equal to its own. I'll try an example that might help, using only the principles I've already described, but this time applying them to an imaginary boat.

EXAMPLE
Imagine that we have a canoe that weighs 85 pounds, and that this canoe has a buoyant layer built into the hull. For simplicity, let's say that the buoyant layer consists of the material on the inner half of the hull instead of being sandwiched in the middle. If you don't like that idea, feel free to imagine that the floatation layer is sandwiched in the middle, because that won't change anything about this example except for the difficulty of the modifications to the boat that we are about to perform.

1. Place the empty canoe in the water. Would you agree that when floating freely, the canoe sinks just a little ways into the water, just enough to displace a volume of water having the same weight as the canoe, which is 85 pounds? Good.

2. Now, let's get our hands dirty. We will strip out that inner floatation layer of the hull, leaving the outer, structural layer of the hull intact and in perfect condition. That means that the outside dimensions of the hull are exactly the same as before. Imagine that we put all that stripped-out floatation on a scale and find that the total weight of that material is 30 pounds (that may not be an unreasonable figure if it was taken from a big, 85-pound canoe, but if you want to pretend it weighs a lot less, that won't change anything except the magnitude of the changes described below). Would you agree that after removal of the floatation layer, the canoe now weighs 55 pounds? Good. It's still a perfectly good canoe - the outside surface of the hull is exactly the same as before - so let's put it back in the water.

3. Okay, so this same canoe, with the exact same external hull dimensions as before, is floating in the water again, but now it only weighs 55 pounds instead of 85. Would you agree that when floating freely, the canoe now displaces less water than before, and that in fact, the weight of the water it is displacing equals the current weight of the canoe, which is 55 pounds? Good.

4. Now, if the canoe has the same external hull dimensions as before, but it is displacing 55 pounds of water while floating instead of the original 85 pounds of water, that means the hull must be embedded in the water by a smaller amount than before, or in other words, it is floating higher in the water. After all, the deeper the hull is pushed into the water, the more water it displaces, and we know it is displacing less water than before, so it must be floating higher than before (If this were a real-life experiment, we could just measure the difference in waterline depth).

5. Therefore, the floatation that was originally built into the hull actually caused the hull to sink more deeply into the water, rather than make it float higher. This is actually very simple, and the laws of buoyancy are obeyed perfectly. When comparing hulls that are exactly the same size: 1. The heavier you make the boat, the deeper it will sink into the water. 2. The more weight you load into the boat, the more deeply it will sink into the water. 3. The less weight you load into the boat, the less deeply it sinks into the water. 4. The lighter you can make the boat, the less deeply it sinks into the water.

6. If we could build this same canoe with magic floatation material that was totally weightless, the removal of the floatation would not change the depth to which the canoe embedded itself in the water while floating, but by the same token, installing the material would not make the canoe float any higher simply because installing the material would not reduce the weight of the canoe. Taking this experiment one step farther will illustrate the other way to affect buoyancy, but we will use the "real" floatation material of the original canoe, not the magical weightless stuff.

****************************

Let's re-install all that floatation back into the hull, returning the boat to its original weight of 85 pounds. However, this time, let's install the floatation layer on the outside of the structural layer of the hull instead of its original location on the inside.

1. Now the canoe looks funny, but let's put it back in the water and let it float again. Since the canoe weighs the same as it did at the very beginning of this experiment, it is once again displacing 85 pounds of water while floating. Is the canoe floating higher, deeper, or at the same depth as it did before we moved the floatation layer to the outside of the hull?

2. Answer: The canoe is floating higher than it did originally. Sure, it weighs 85 pounds, just like it did originally, and it still displaces exactly 85 pounds of water while floating, but now the external dimensions of the hull are greater than before because we put the floatation layer on the outside. Since the hull only sinks into the water deeply enough to displace 85 pounds of water, it sinks into the water less deeply now. The bigger hull does not need to be embedded as deeply as the original, smaller-size hull to displace the same amount of water.