Why don't you list weights with the other dimensions?
Mariner kayaks are usually made for an individual paddler so the customer has some choice in the matter. We have made kayaks weighing from 30 pounds to over 70 lbs. The questions we want to know are what weight would you like your kayak to be and what are you willing to give up to get it? Strength? Money? Size? Yellow color? A hatch? A rudder? The point is that lots of choices you make will also affect your kayak's weight. The Sea Kayaker magazine reviews we have reprinted list the weight for the kayaks they weighed. We prefer to be asked about weight on the phone so we can explain the range, the costs, the normal variations that can be expected, which colors weigh the most, etc.
Also, weight is often the most misrepresented dimension in kayak advertising. We try to give our customers as good an idea about what their new kayak will weight as we can, but at the same time we don't want our honest answers compared with some of the 10 to 20 pound misrepresentations we have seen. This includes most magazine reviews and buyers guides that simply reprint the advertised weights provided by the manufacturer. By contrast the reviews done by Sea Kayaker magazine all contain what a test kayak actually weighed (but read the articles carefully because some manufacturers supply graphite or Kevlar™ kayaks to be tested). A lightweight Kevlar™ or graphite test kayak will also make the drag estimates in the magazine look a little better too. If you are interested in how much, download one of the spreadsheets Sea Kayaker uses to estimate drag (from our "Downloads" page) and add more weight, as well as a little more draft, waterline width and wetted surface and see what differences 10 or 20 pounds can make. We keep a bathroom scale in our store so any kayak there can be weighed. If weight is important to you we suggest you take a bathroom scale with you when you go kayak shopping to avoid relying on outdated or dishonest data to make your decision. We find it is best to stand on the scale and pick up the kayak and then subtract your weight.
Back to FAQ Index

Why are all your kayaks Swedeform?
The Swede-form shape (greater underwater volume aft of the midpoint) has less resistance moving at the water's surface than either a fish-form shape (its opposite) or a symmetrical hull. The finer bow more gently parts the water for less wave-making resistance. The longer run of positive pressure in the forebody of a hull moving forward can also result in a longer area of the hull being in laminar flow (laminar flow over a surface creates about four times less drag than turbulent flow). Note: A fish-form shape has less resistance underwater or in the air (where there is no wave drag). This has confused several designers who have consulted hydrodynamic texts, but not gotten the full picture of what happens at the water’s surface. Fast ships, canoes and kayaks are Swede-form. Fast submarines and fast fish are fish-form. Swede form is also a little faster at top speed because the wider more buoyant stern doesn't "squat" into the wave trough as readily as a fine one.
A Swede-form hull has many other advantages over fish-form. They include:
1) Less pounding in head seas because they are narrower in the area where pounding occurs (but, bottom shape is a bigger factor in pounding so some V-bottomed fish-form kayaks will be softer riding than some flat bottomed Swedeform ones).
2) Easier and quicker turning (turns are enhanced by the greater curve at the side of the stern quarter--and leaning makes this effect even more pronounced).
3) Less weatherhelm (more windage and a longer lever arm in front of the paddler and less behind)
4) Greater gear capacity (more of its volume is in usable storage space behind the paddler and less of the total volume is in the wasted space around ones legs).
5) A narrower beam where the paddle enters the water means easier more efficient paddling (less boat to reach over) and less turning moment produced with each (less off-center) stroke.
6) Less energy robbing pitching motions in head seas and less wave pressure on the bow than fish-form mean a faster smoother ride into waves.
Fishform advocates correctly point out that Swedeform is less directionally stable (other things being equal). One of them used to even say fish-form was self-correcting (when he really meant self-stabilizing).  We think too much tracking stiffness is a disadvantage. Directionally self-stabilizing just means you work for each degree you must turn rather than being able to translate your momentum into turning by simply leaning the kayak as is usually the case with Swedeform. Course keeping can actually be harder with fishform because correcting ones course after a wave has altered it is more difficult with a kayak that resists turning. Leaning the hull doesn't increase turning performance of a fishform kayak nearly as much as with a Swedeform one. The less directionally stable Swedeform shape will track just fine if some keel is added in the stern sections like we do. When this stabilized Swedeform shape is leaned it regains its superior maneuverability. With a Mariner you get the best of both worlds. They track straight when level yet turn readily with a slight lean. A Swedeform shape is just one of the many aspects we use to enhance responsiveness in a Mariner kayak's handling.
Back to FAQ Index

Your sliding seat fits me perfectly. Can I buy one to put in my kayak (or the kit I am building)?
Unfortunately no, we can make very limited numbers of them and therefore we seem chronically in danger of running out and holding up the delivery of a customer's new kayak for want of a seat.
Back to FAQ Index

What is initial and secondary stability?
Initial (or primary) stability is how hard the craft resists being tipped from the upright position. If you are looking at a graph of stability (see the XL review's stability graphs  or any recent issue of Sea Kayaker magazine)  the steepness of the angle off of zero is an indication of the primary stability.
Secondary stability is a lot harder to define. Most experienced kayakers will tell you they know it when they feel it (sort of a seat-of-the-pants thing).
One designer used to claim there is no such thing as secondary stability and any kayak that is more stable initially will be more stable at all angles of lean. I'm not sure he still claims this because I once showed him some stability graphs (Chinook and Puffin in the Winter 1986 issue of Sea Kayaker magazine) where the less initially stable kayak, the Puffin, had not only higher relative stability at higher angles of lean than the Chinook but also a higher maximum stability and a greater total area under the curve). Personally, I define secondary stability subjectively as how secure you feel when you have leaned the kayak well to one side.
A kayak whose maximum stability is five times as high as its stability at 5 degrees of lean will "feel" more secondarily stable than a kayak with a much higher maximum stability that is only three times as stable at maximum as it was at 5 degrees. This defines secondary stability as being somewhat in an inverse relationship to initial stability.  I'll make an analogy with rocking back in a rocking chair (low initial stability/higher secondary stability) and compare that to rocking back in a regular four legged chair (high initial stability/high total stability/low feeling of security as you teeter at the balance point). It is hard to lean back on a standard chair (most of my teachers frowned on my practice of balancing my desks on the back legs when I was bored, especially when I would draw their attention to what I was doing when I would almost lose my balance backwards and --in a desperate attempt to recover--crash back down loudly to the "initially" stable position. I don't remember ever going over backwards but that was always the risk I flirted with--a capsize to the rear). Looking at the static stability graphs I would define a kayak with good secondary stability as one whose stability curves show a relatively shallow angle off of zero (so you don't have to put a lot of energy into leaning it) but which has the point of maximum stability (the top of the curve) at a greater angle of lean (and maybe, but not necessarily, at a higher maximum point) than a kayak with less "secondary" stability. (See the Mariner XL, Arluk III, and Solander stability comparisons in the XL review in the Spring 1987 issue of Sea Kayaker magazine).
Even this doesn't totally account for the difference in "feel". A smooth progressive increase in stability out to near the maximum allows a trustworthy "feel". Any abrupt changes would be like putting a speed bump or flat spot on the rocking chair rockers. The above definition is from my own observations and guesses regarding secondary stability in kayaks. I make no claim to scientific validity or even at a valid definition of the term (which may exist somewhere in Naval Architecture). I and most experienced paddlers prefer lower initial and good "secondary" stability. Easy to lean yet secure while leaned.
Back to FAQ Index

Are there other kinds of stability to consider?
Well, there is what I once called "dynamic stability" until I found out that Naval Architect's use that term to mean: "the work done to tilt the hull to a certain angle". Since that is not at all what I meant, I'll try a new name. How about "Seakindliness"? Seakindliness to me is: "how does the kayak feel in rough seas?". Does it stay under you or is it always sliding to the side out from under you. Does it feel neutral and consistent (or even gyroscopic) in waves or are the waves knocking it around and rocking it. Are the motions smooth or jerky. Do two waves pick the kayak up by the narrow ends and make you feel like an off balanced turkey on a spit or does it maintain a comfortable and secure feel in steep waves.
Too much initial stability means the hull stays flat to the wave faces leaving the paddler to constantly bend the torso to keep a level head. (Note: contrary to what is usually assumed, this by itself does not destabilize the flat bottomed craft because the motion of the passing wave moving the hull forward and back creates and "artificial gravity" that compensates for much of the tilt. However, if the paddler were to stay rigid in the kayak and swing back and forth like a metronome in waves they would quickly get seasick if they didn't somehow keep their eyes level with the horizon. The kayak that is initially less stable can save one a lot of bending at the waist to make this compensation.
A kayak with a lower center of gravity (low seat or gear laden) will feel more comfortable in waves. Imagine a wide flat bottomed canoe with its high seating position in steep seas. As the initially stable canoe is tilted by the wave the high seat is also swung to the down wave side.  If the paddler attempts to shift their center of gravity to compensate that will (by an equal and opposite reaction) also use the seat height as a lever to tilt the canoe in the opposite way (even further tipped down the wave than it already was). The canoeist may be able to get down on their knees to lower the center of gravity to be more comfortable (and maybe to pray that the waves don't swamp the open canoe) but a high seat in a kayak is unlikely to be easily lowered to improve stability in rough conditions. Raising the seat to make a wider kayak easier to lean (as some suggest--also claiming the higher seat allows for a more powerful stroke) has several down sides compared with having the kayak narrower (therefore easier through the water) and gaining back initial and secondary stability (and seakindliness) by having the seat as low as is practical.
Back to FAQ Index