That you read closely the original post, and my initial reply to your post. The original post states he is looking for a TOURING kayak, not a waveski. I know of NO touring kayak, in any material, with the exception of perhaps SOF, that weighs 24 pounds. And it still does not address the durability issue. No where does he mention a concern with weight, only speed and the ability to go out for self contained 1 week trips. Waveski doesn't quaify. And I strongly disagree that no serious paddlers use plastic. On the contrary, many serious paddlers will indeed have plastic as well as glass, and use the plastic where impact with rocks is a probability or possibility, such as rock gardens, etc. And so I maintain you are incorrect in summarily dismissing plastic boats and their users as somehow less qualified than a glass boat and those who paddle them. And paddling glass, by the way, doesn't automatically make anyone a qualified paddler. Seat time, lessons and experience is WAY more important than boat material. And I never criticized or made a judgement about you or your boat. So lose the defensive attitude and lighten up.
glide does not change anything about optimal designed hull speed for any given hull. You will notice glide in a glass boat no matter whether or not your engine can actually drive the hull at it’s designed hull speed or not.
When, you hit the wall of the boats design can be quite differant from when, you hit the wall of the motor
(# 3 and # 4 above are not contradictory)in fact they are very compatiable…If the motor can’t drive either hull to it’s wall…then glide makes what you can do easier and might actually allow a less than optimal motor , to get a wee bit closer to the hulls wall…in effect making the glass kayak faster for the less than optimal motor
it will affect glide, but not optimal hull speed (designed wall)
one thing that hasn’t been mentioned is that weight only affects exceleration up to whatever speed the motor can drive the hull at…it’s only effect on hull speed as far as the wall is that view the water has of the hull…two exact hulls with differant lay-ups…a light boat with a heavy paddler or a heavy boat with a light paddler are the same as the what the water sees if the two have the same total package weight. however a lighter boat with a light paddler will show a completely differant picture to the water.
actual speed at which any boat can be paddled at (after reaching that speed) is not determined by excelleration, only the time taken to reach that point is affected.
In racing, the acceleration to the hull speed counts…in cruzing…not so much
A lighter boat will not ride as comfortable (like a Caddy) as a heavy boat…but a heavy boat will not excelerate as much as the lighter one…weight can be changed by adding or subtracting gear, but glide is still better with glass. (test this by taking 1 or 2 strokes and see how far the boat travels untill it stops)
Cartopping, heat, repairability I paddled many boats before buying and I discovered the glass boats are definitely lighter and slightly more responsive than plastic. The Prijon is the most responsive of the plastic boats I’ve paddled, but still not like the glass.
The deciding factor for me was the “oil-canning” effect of the plastic boats. Polyethylene is a thermoplastic polymer, which means that when exposed to heat it deforms in a plastic manner (i.e. permanently). Epoxy and polyester are thermoset polymers, which means once they are cured they will only deform in an elastic manner (i.e. bend and spring back).
For long car-top trips, I want to be able to securely strap the boat down without worry of deforming the hull and living with a permanent starboard tendancy.
Also, I am pretty comfortable doing my own glass and gel-coat repairs. From what I have read, repairing a poly boat is a real trip.
That said, the top hull speed is defined by waterlength. Same boat with a ligther paddler will have less waterlength than with heavier paddler. Hence the top hull speed will depend on the weight that boat carries.
The hydrodynamic drag will also depend on how much water a hull displaces - the less it displaces, the better.
Speed difference Orginal post read “Is a plastic yak slower than a fiberglass yak by more than a couple miles per hour.”
How fast do you intend on going? A touring/sea kayak is going to travel 4-6 mph. “couple of miles per hour” faster and you’ll be up there with Oscar Chalupsky in an Epic V10, slower and you’ll be trolling for fish in a small sit on top.
It’s spring, go to some demo days, paddle and buy what makes you happy.
Yes, difference on new hulls would be slight, as Salty and others have said, but after a plastic hull accumulates a few years of scratches and fuzz it starts to take its toll on speed. Winters has a good bit on the effect of scratches somewhere...
Composites accumulate scratches as well, but plastic hulls scratch/gouge more easily, and they tend to get banged up more as their "lower" cost/worry can also translate to less attention/care. Composites tend to get smaller/shallower scratches, don't fuzz, and so can maintain a smoother finish longer.
Stiffness also impacts speed - the stiffer the material the better. Generally, composites are better for this.
Composites can be refinished/repaired more easily, and their higher perceived (as opposed to actual) value also encourages owners to take better care. They also tend to last longer - and have higher resale value.
My advice for lake/sea touring kayak (used off bony rivers) - is to buy composite. If budget is main concern, buy USED composite - which often can be had for plastic prices - and which you can typically resell years later for about what you paid! In the long run these can practically be free kayaks.
how that affects speed and efficiency "A 5 percent decrease in wetted surface is worth bragging about, but a single year’s scratching and banging can easily double Cf from 0.004 on a new fiberglass canoe to 0.008. This more than offsets the designer’s efforts. The cavalier attitudes of most canoeists towards their boats is evidence that a 50 percent resistance increase is not often noticed if only because the onset of its effect is so gradual."
The only shortcoming of all the Prijons except the Barracuda which is narrower (21 inches) and is the only one that has a v-bottom: weathercocking. One must be a rudder lover in adverse conditions, lest they become a windmill. This is a function of the flat bottomed Prijons; the Kodiak has length to offset the weathercocking, a help but not a solution. The expedition kayakers you mention use the rudder. On a good note, if one enjoys a rudder (many expedtion kayakers and authors--John Dowd, for instance--swear by a rudder for it's ease of boat control), then the Prijon Butterfly rudder ($200) is one of if not the best rudder. Check it out or make sure you ncheck that out when you are considering boats by German Prijon.
Many boats might be reasonable for a kayak sail, but the Prijon Kodiak, featuring both stability and speed, is one that often sports a sail--might be something for you to consider if the notion strikes you.
Good luck searching for that perfect plastic boat. I have taken my Nordkapp RM out now three times, all short paddles, and find it to be the best tracking, most seaworthy (I have not taken it in seas yet though), least weathercocking and most responsive boat I have ever owned. And I have owned almost all the Prijons (plus other boats, like the Valley Avocet, Bic Yakka, etc.) There is a Valley dealer in Austin:
Austin Outdoor Gear & Guidance, www.kayaktexas.com
3411 N. IH 35 Austin, TX 78722
Tel: (887) 773-2644Email: info@kayaktexas.com
Let us all know what you buy in the end, original poster.
Kodiak I like mine too and the rudder is nice when weaving through obstacles. And its tough! I have to say though, if you have a touring boat on large bodies of water I dont see the big problem with a few more pounds once its in the water. I didnt buy mine to carry it around and for the trip from the vehicle I strap on the wheels and pull it.
I guess it comes down to speed at that point.
We all have to find what we like kinda like the ford/chevy debate
“Even though the composite kayaks were undoubtably better, the plastic capellas proved amazingly robust. We needed to hull repair each of the 3 composite boats but only 2 minor repairs (to a seat and a foot rest) were required to the plastic ones.”
WOW! When I asked the question I had no idea I would get this post going this well. I appreciat ALL the replies, I really do. I've narrowed it down to a Prijon Kodiak, and the Q700X by QCC. Heck if I get the money together I may buy both. Each yaks has it ups and downs, and both have very few downs. Its a hard toss up, but I love them both from What I've read. I just may stop being so cheap and go for the Q700X from QCC. I have not owned a glass yak yet (I have five plastics), and I've been wanting a glass.
So thanks everyone for your input and may your waters be calm, the noicy boaters all at work!!!
Agree with Greyak… …on both of his posts. Regarding the speed issue, what concerns non-racers is really the speed generated per unit erergy expended, which I agree is efficiency. This relates to hull stiffness by a very tiny amount, but moreso about parasitic drag, causing frictional losses. In both cases, glass is superior to plastic. One thing not mentioned heretofore is the weight issue in light of momemtum. Easier to get a light boat started, stopped, and turned, than the exact same, heavier hull. Same with boats, cars, and aircraft. Again, here the lighter, glass boat wins.
My suggestion, being only a lowly intermediate guy who owns plastic, glass, and thermo, is that, with the original poster not knowing the difference, he should get plastic, provided he can lift it. Save your money until you are ready TO FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF the differences. Stick with the sport, and this will take care of itself. You’ll eventually own a glass boat…
