Valley's Misleading Nomenclature

Has anyone else taken a look at the measures of the Aquanaut RM?

This boat is marketed as the poly version of the Aquanaut, yet it is 6" shorter, 3/4" wider, and 1.5" deeper at front coaming than the composite Aquanaut.

Combined with its shorter length, I would imagine that it feels quite different than the original Aquanaut.

Its depth and width are closer to the Argonaut.

So why is this kayak called an Aquanaut?

“Brit Gate…”

– Last Updated: Apr-08-05 5:43 PM EST –

Is this like NDK's claims about the weights of their boats? It's tough to be a "Brit-o-phile..." Maybe it's time for "tough love." :D


Another Valley Question
I know the specs( Lenght, width, and weight) for the plastic Skerrey, and the Skerrey XL, but I have never seen the specs for the regular fiberglass Skerrey.

version is the key word
All boats are different between the plastic and composite versions. (though this is pehaps a stretch. The Skerrey is also ver different. I hope the discrepancy did not cost you much.

New Model 2004

The '04 catalog calls the Aquanaut RM a “new design for 2004. It is essentially a polyethylene version of the Valley popular Aquanaut, only a bit shorter.” So, they apparently aren’t hiding the fact. I guess the difference is in the very different names: Aquanaut vs. AquanautRM. Since the catalog says “popular Aquanaut” I’ll bet they’re using the “popular” part as a marketing ploy for the “new design”!


because they get to call it that

more than shorter

The current GRO catalogue is the first I’ve seen that notes the greater beam and depth.

There is much more difference in measure between the Aquanaut and the AquanautRM than the Argonaut and the Aquanaut. If the half inch narrower and inch or so lower decks was enough for Valley to give the Aquanaut and different name than the Argonaut, it certainly seems that the measures of the Aquanaut RM are sufficiently different to give it its own designation.

The Avocet and Avocet RM have pretty much the same measures.

Someone buying a RM Aquanaut and expecting the same or similar performance as the composite 'Naut is going to be very disappointed.

Cost me nothing,
I already have ProLite Aquanaut that I bought last year.

I am disappointed that Valley would call a shorter, beamier, deeper boat the same name. I believe that it is misleading.

picking nits
first off anyone who’d buying a plastic boat expecting the same thing as a composite boat is confused,there are some shapes that don’t recreate well in plastic compared to composite. CD Scirocco doesn’t paddle the same as the Gulfstream,it’s a different name but they say it’s the plastic version of the Gulfstream.

What linear dimensions mean for comparing two hulls of different designs is often useless. You could have the same max. beam, overal length with different waterplane measurments or hull shape. So having the exact same dimensions really doesn’t say the hulls are the same.

They make the boats,they get to say what they want. If you assume dimensions define the boat you’re making a very broad assumption.

Clarity in nomenclature

– Last Updated: Apr-09-05 9:34 AM EST –

Though CD says the Sirocco is basically a poly Gulfstream, they acknowledge the difference in models by giving them different names.

The original Aquanaut is basically a lower volume Argonaut, yet Valley recognized that the differrence was significant enough to give the Aquanaut a different name.

The Argonaut is basically an expedition vesion of the Avocet. It is the same hull profile, but longer, and slightly higher decked with less rocker. Valley saw the value in giving the Argonaut its own name.

The poly version of the CD Solstice is the Storm. According to a post here last year, a new Storm performs about the same as the model Solstice it is patterned on. Yet CD is clear that there are differences between the boats in their naming.

The Avocet and AvocetRM are basically the same boat. The hull profile and dimensions are just about the same. I've paddled both versions of the Avocet and they do feel similar.

Valley could call the poly Aquanaut a Nordkapp RM if they chose. As stated above, they make the boat, they can call it anything they want. By naming the new poly boat an 'Aquanaut' Valley suggests that the pre-existing boat it is closest to is the Aquanaut, which is not true.

sorry i’m a little lost
can’t valley make any kayak they want and call it whatever they want?

P&H has the exact same thing with the capella. The RM version is totally different than the glass/kevlar version.

The plastic avocet is different than it’s composite counterpart.

i would always assume the glass counterpart of any plastic kayak is a cousin rather than a twin.

what about the tempest steve? Speak up?

But maybe…
Maybe by tweaking the RM’s dimensions they were able to get it to behave more like the original composite version than if they had just copied the hull shape as closely as possible…

Now, I’m just playing devil’s advocate, but I’d like to hear from someone who has paddled them side by side. AFAIC, until then it’s just speculation. I’d be willing to label it dubious if someone could say that the difference in the way they paddled was much greater than say, the Avocet and AvocetRM.

However, if there is a 30% difference in the way the Avocet and AvocetRM paddle, and maybe a 35% difference in the way the Aquanaut and AqaunautRM paddle, I don’t think it’s a big deal. As long as they are designing the performance characteristics along the same lines, I think it’s probably kosher. In fact, if it were my decision, I would rather have the boat that better mimicked the performance of the composite, rather than the dimensions.

Of course…
Anyone can make anything (so long as patent and trademark are not infringed)and call it anything they like.

Valley quite clearly described the evolution of the Avocet to Argonaut to Aquanaut. Relative length, width, depth and rocker were given. They even noted derivation of hull section (from Pintail).

Unfortunately, for the AquanautRM, they simply stated that it is the same as composite, but a little shorter.

Valley often tweaks its designs with no info given (note the change in rear deck on the pintail). They do, however, seem to convey each change to the Nordkapp - their signature boat.

I am grateful that (new) GRO has provided more detail than had previously been available.

And, yes, it does come down to demoing the boat.

As I am looking for a new composite day boat, demoing a 17’ plastic boat is not a high priority. Though I will like to know its performance characteristics so to know whether to recommend it.

With luck as soon as someone on this board has gotten into one we will be able to read an evaluation.

clairty in nomenclature
well that’s asking a lot when it comes to marketing.

you haven’t paddled them?
wait,so you are just going by a couple linear dimensions?

Length, width, and depth
Significant dimensions.

I did not think this thread would go very long. I just wanted to note the discrepencies between Valley’s statements and the actual boat.

I do prefer clarity from manufacturers. Valley has been more forthright in the past.

Though originally promised last year the AquanautRM just hit shops this Spring. I have not gotten to a Valley dealer since they arrived. I own an Aquanaut (ProLite layup).

are linear dimensions ,what you paddle is a three dimensional shape that can vary considerably with the same x,y,z dimensions.

I think this thread is going on a bit for the same reason people ask “will kayak X be faster than kayak Y,it’s 8” longer". There are assumptions about the significance of these linear dimensions that doesn’t necessarily pan out. You could get a CD Andromeda which is longer/skinnier than a QCC600 which is shorter/wider,and you’ll be faster in the QCC600.

combined with…
hull section and rocker.

When you combine length, width, depth with hull profile and rocker, you start getting a sense of the range of boat performance. If waterline length and beam can be surmised or approximated you get even closer.

If QCC puts out a boat that is shorter and wider with similar rocker to a QCC model I’ve paddled, I can probably get a rough sense of its feel/performance.

Having paddled an Aquanaut, then demoing an Avocet, the feel of the Avocet was consistent with my expectations from Valley’s info regarding length, depth, width, hull profile and rocker.

There is a method…
See this sight: