Why do Old Town canoes have dramatically higher capacity than Osagian canoes?
I've been thinking about buying a canoe for a little while now. Growing up my family had an aluminum canoe so I've been looking at aluminum canoes in addition to the plastic canoes commonly seen in sporting goods stores. Today while looking at the canoes it struck me that the Osagian 17' canoe has very similar dimensions to the Old Town Discovery 169, and Old Town Penobscot 174. Both Old Town canoes have a capacity nearly double the 780 lbs. capacity of the Osagian canoe. The major difference that I can see is the Discovery is 2 inches taller and the Penobscot is 1 inch taller than the Osagian. I would be inclined to attribute the extra capacity to the height difference but Penobscot has 100 lb more capacity than the Discovery even though it is 1 inch shorter. This means that length is a bigger factor than height for Old Town canoe capacity.
Additionally the shape of the boats seems similar from a top view. Not that a couple of pounds weight would equate to hundreds of pounds of additional capacity but the aluminum Osagian canoe is lighter than either of the Old Town canoes. So why do the Old Town canoes have more carrying capacity? Is this just a meaningless marketing number so each company can claim whatever numbers they want?
I just found this Grumman aluminum canoe that has a very comparable capacity to the Osagian canoe.
This post was sourced from https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/q/17076. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
2 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
It could just be a difference between how the companies calculate it.
From an article about kayak weight capacity,
There's no industry standard for determining the maximum weight capacity of a fishing kayak. Every company approaches the question a little differently. The more you dive into the numbers, the more it is obvious.
While every manufacturer assigns a weight capacity to its designs, it isn't truly a hard and fast rating. Working weight capacity is dependent on water and weather conditions, the user's experience level, load distribution, and the user's fitness and agility level.
0 comment threads
Agree with Charlie Brumbaugh
Manufacturer's figures are based on smoke and mirrors, bragging rights, and what someone thinks would be possible in good conditions. I tell you that loading a canoe with the amount of weight they declare is something that can be done only on a calm day.
I've run into one company that give the required weight to raise the water line inch by inch. (Clipper, I think...)
Rules of thumb:
A foot of extra canoe is added in the middle. The ends are the same. So the capacity goes up fast with increasing length.
Making it narrower doesn't decrease the capacity nearly as fast, but it decreases stability in a hurry. I took a 32" beam canoe, took out the thwarts, and cranked it down to 30 inches. Made it noticeably faster, and a lot tippier. Now this would also have altered the cross section of the boat, so it's not just because it's narrower.
Consider 15 foot canoe as a solo boat for a big person; as a tandem canoe for kids at the cottage, possibly a weekend tripping boat for average size people.
I liked the Discover series for tripping in Northern Saskatchewan. The 163 was good for the kids. 169 was good for most staff, and we had a big 172 for our ox -- staff member who was 6' 3" and 220 lbs.
Typically a canoe carried 2 people, 2 70 liter sealine personal packs, 2 sealine group gear packs. Personal packs were typically about 30-40 pounds. Food packs could be 80-100 at the start of a trip. So 280 pounds plus people. If people was a pair of 120 pound grand 9's, you got 520. More often it would be a 150 pound senior and a 120 pound shrimp. Play with the numbers. It's hard to get above 600.
We were out for 2-3 weeks at a time. Figure 2 pounds dry weight food per man day, to increase it by another 2 weeks would be 14 days * 2 people/canoe * 2 pounds/day = another 56 pounds per canoe. (The non-personal packs also included fuel, stove, kitchen tarp...)
The 163's were ok, but less than nimble until we ate down the food. I preferred the 169's. The 172 was also a pig.
I've also owned an 17 foot clipper tripper, but I never did a long trip on it. But it was FAST.
This post was sourced from https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/a/17080. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads