This review will be a bit longer than many because I feel it important to give a detailed report that can realistically help the next kayaking community buyer. At best, it is bittersweet to give a less-than-perfect score to a boat one owns. For no other reason, it can directly affect the potential resale value of one’s own investment! But I know how much I would appreciate good input when trying so hard to get the right model and so have finally decided to “come forth” and recount my experience. I think it’s also important to add that this report is not vindictive or a way to find a platform to whine about a manufacturer. It is given out of my own busy schedule, against the value of my own possession, to just add good support to the continuous search for excellence in the kayaking family. I am a keen supporter of the kayaking manufacturers who work hard to provide great products, often with very thin margins of profit. It is never a good thing to damper that faith. If any part of my critique is later worth modifying because of manufacturer response and improvements, I am the first to welcome it and support them!

First, to give some credence, I have owned and paddled a Kayakpro Marlin (Nemo) for a year and a half and put in many miles (hundreds) in varying conditions. I also own a QCC as well as a Fenn Mako 6. Previous kayaks include several years with the comparable Epic Endurance Ultra as well as a different Kayakpro model, the Jet, a good K1-style trainer for smaller paddlers (I am 6’1”, 180 lbs and did not really fit the boat). I have paddled quite a few other models in these categories as well.

The Marlin (which is also the Nemo with a bit larger cockpit area) is lined up to compare with fast “sea kayaks”, good primarily for training and racing but can also be used for some touring. Other popular boats in the U.S. that fall in this category are the Epic Endurance, Seda Glider, QCC 700X, Current Designs Stratus (Freedom)… I believe all these models are pretty close in speed, capable of winning the same race with the same paddler, and the Marlin is built to do the same. On a speed scale of 1 – 10, the Marlin would fall on the upper range. It is a fast 18 ft. composite kayak. It has a very sharp bow, open cockpit for paddling in the K1-style position as well as good rotation. And, along with the Freedom, comes in as probably the lightest of the group by perhaps a pound or so.

Now the downsides. On quality construction and durability, the QCC would probably rank highest, then the Glider, the Endurance, the Stratus, and finally at the bottom, the Marlin. I believe the Marlin is, in fact, a potential safety hazard in all but the most benign conditions. Here are the reasons why I would choose differently in purchasing my boat today. Here is a summary of my experience, from placing my order to present:
1. The boats are built in “lots”, in a Chinese factory then shipped together in a container to the U.S. When ordering, expect a 4-6 month wait period. Expect delays of as much as an additional 4 months (both Jet and Marlin experience) from originally promised date of delivery. Marlin finally arrived with a broken-off piece of the combing area, like a “shark bite” off one side. I called Kayakpro and was assured a replacement. Granted, it was still O.K. to paddle. Applied duct tape to secure the breakage from further troubles. Took it out that same evening to adjust it for a race and… the steering cable snapped, leaving the rudder useless, dangling and dragging against the boat. This was a bad omen… Repaired cable, began using it, then discovered the hatches chronically leaked. I hoped all would be resolved with the arrival a replacement model.


2. Replacement arrived 2.5 months past date given (6 months total). Cable (yes, same one) snapped off new boat first time out. Repaired and reinforced cable connections.

3. Also like first model, quickly discovered the new boat’s hatches leaked. Company apologizes and gives instructions on repair, recommending it be done by an experienced boat repair business. Note: Kayakpro did offer to cover any repair expenses. I paid for repairs and they discounted it off boat’s final payment price. Apparently, this has been a chronic problem with the Marlin / Nemo as others have written about it as well. What was also particularly concerning was that it happened with two different boats from two different factory “lots”. And even with top grade repair work, the back hatch still somehow seeps in a small amount of water.

4. Wider, larger Marlin seat (as opposed to Nemo) doesn’t fit the contour of the boat bottom and so bends and creaks from side to side. Had to apply thick layer of compressed foam on both sides to stabilize. Company acknowledged this was “an issue” but offer no clues as to remodeling or replacement.

5. As water miles accrue, discover footboard hinges begin to twist and bend with foot pressure and cable counter-pressure. It was assembled with the cheapest quality hardware store $.50 piano hinge, thin and too small to cover footboard width properly. I eventually replaced them with thicker marine grade hinges that properly cover width of footboard.

Also discovered that, although the Marlin was touted for larger paddlers, you could not push the assembly deep into the hull for a longer paddler (I am “tall” but not long-legged)! The footboard would scrape on the inside hull after a certain point. I sawed the extreme upper corners off the footboard in order to get it to slide farther and drilled new holes for the cable lines.

6. Next is the “gas pedal” system, which is simply a small bungee cord that gives counter tension behind the footboard assembly. Over time, the small cord began to get “caught” around the anchor screw and “hesitate”, causing slack in the rudder pedals. I finally upgraded this with a marine pulley and better bungee cord so as to fix pedal /rudder delays.

7. Other paddlers have also mentioned the chronic snapped cables in reviews. The weak link has to do with some basically-useless micro adjustment knobs -- look good on paper and are fine for K1 sprint model boats but completely unnecessary for a real sea kayak. In fact, they only serve to cause additional weak links in the cable line. The cable can be adjusted just fine by unscrewing the cable ties at the rudder just like 99% of all other sea kayaks.

8. The plastic sheathed cables started to rust out! And I haven’t even paddled it in salt water. They are corroding under the plastic and will have to be replaced. Mentioned this to Kayakpro and only got a “how surprising” empty response. They could not assure me of any replacements....

9. After a few months of paddling, the boat surface layer began to crack and peel. At first only one small area (unrelated to potentially vulnerable areas such paddle scuffs or other surface contacts). I eventually had a repair shop grind, patch, buff and paint the section. Kayakpro acknowledged this had “happened with some other boats as well”. They also discounted these additional repairs from the final payment I never had to make.

10. A month afterward, a new bit of cracking appeared in a new area, unrelated to the first one. They appear as “cracked egg” surface hairs, then the peeling and flaking progresses. The repairs have now eaten up what Kayakpro discounted from my original purchase payment so I am “on my own” from here. And I am waiting for the next surface “cracked egg” hairlines to appear somewhere…

11. The ENTIRE combing around cockpit is now breaking off (!). I have duct taped it underneath to just hold it until I bite the bullet and have it properly repaired and reinforced. To use the boat, I am no longer handling it from any outer combing points and I do not allow my body to even lightly press it as I descend into the cockpit. And I never abused it, hardly used it, and certainly never gave it a proper working out such as re-entries or loading issues. Like the first defective model’s combing, it is simply too thin and lacks proper robust strength for what it is made to do. The real issue here is that the whole boat, in order to keep the weight down so low, was built with too thin a layer of gelcoat. Thus easy breakage, peeling skin, etc. The integrity of the boat was compromised from factory. The outer layer of the Marlin is just too thin. I would rather have an extra pound or two or three and a boat I could use in real conditions than pay this price for light weight. And no matter how many patches or repairs, it will always be the constant concern for a fragile toy, not a well-made sea kayak.

12. This last point isn’t regarding a factory defect but rather a design issue. The Marlin and Nemo come with a rudder that is non-retractable from the cockpit. In my opinion, there are many scenarios where having to first deploy a rudder manually is anywhere from annoying to, depending on skills, unacceptable, such as launching off rocky coastlines, strong surf or quick depth drops. But more crucial is the inability to retract a rudder while paddling in certain conditions. An immediate example is in the case of a cable snap (something that has happened several times in my case). Once the cable snaps, the rudder is out of the paddler’s control, flopping down and cutting angles in the water against the side of the boat. The paddler is then forced to broad sweep and fight against it in order to compensate… and can’t be lifted out. It then becomes a handicap and even a real danger, especially in strong surf, rock gardens, tidal or weather situations, or long distances from shore. I don’t think this boat should be touted as a “sea kayak” and compared in ads to the Explorer or Romany. Especially not without a more secure sea steering system.

Finally, I must say the Nemo / Marlin reached a point of “dead end”. I realized boat could not be “fixed” and, however courteous (cursory) a response, the real issues were ultimately lost in empty apologies and any further commitment to delivering the boat that was marketed. This boat was expensive and sold as a higher-end elite model. And shipping costs are not included in quoted price. If I had to do it all over again, I’d be paddling one of the other boats mentioned earlier in my critique. At least from QCC and Epic, I have personal experience and ownership that can vouch for them. And close paddling friends who loyally swear by the Seda, Valley, and Current Designs brands.

Greg, a sad tale indeed. Did you have an opportunity to look at/sit in/paddle this boat prior to purchase? What was your decision process that put you into this boat? Given Epic's epic problems with Chinese-built craft, maybe this is the time to carefully evaluate the wisdom of buying a boat that one hasn't had a chance(?) to physically touch/examine.

I built my boat, so I immediately complain to the manufacturer when something goes wrong, and he fixes it right away!

I came across your review on the internet. I have to say that my experience with the Nemo is positive and I have never experienced any of the problems you mentioned. I adjusted the cables from behind the foot plate. A friend of mine is 6'4" and the boat is a good fit. I paddle the Nemo on Lake Michigan and land on a rocky surfaces. I have experienced nothing other than scratches on the hull. I clean my cables so that they don't rust. I have been using the Nemo for over a year as have two of my friends. We think it is a great kayak.

Interesting review, I appreciate your comments...

Honestly though, I don't like your review because it lends credence to an assumption that your experience is the "Modus Operandi" of this particular company which is obviously impossible to really believe. I doubt they would have lasted this long if that were the case. Plus, the review is a deeply personal account making it biased in itself. I feel that it lacks anything more than an ancedotal account of something which was nonetheless sad.

I have to disagree with Mitch's assessment of Greg's review. I found it very useful to have an owner's input both on what he felt were design flaws in the boat, and also on examples of poor workmanship and shoddy materials in constructing the boat. We have Sue's positive experience also, but that doesn't mean that Greg might be the only person to have gotten a bad boat from this company. The moral, to me, is to test-paddle and closely examine whatever boat you choose to purchase. Wonderful reviews of their boats by happy owners are a dime a dozen (see my Epic 16X review, or Magooch's reviews); reviews like Greg's are far more thought- and action-provoking.

HI. This is mi first message. I live in Spain. I bought a Marlin and I´m agree with almost everything writen by Gregjakob. I had exactly the same experience!!!
Here, in Spain, if somebody ask me about my kayak, I say better look others manufacturers. Its a good design but I have a lot of problems... with everything!!! And I´m still waiting my hatch covers!!!

I would tend to agree with that point of view - however you have to admit that because of some of these deeply specific and personal reviews, the ratings of many products are unfairly dragged down. For instance, you'll see complaints about a product having a perceived (or real) defect and the person will rate it a 1 star. Absolutely useless. There is a fine line here between legit concerns and particular bias or isolated incident.

I saw areview on a particular P&H boat which was posted here and on Paddling.net. The design of this hull is very similar to mine and the guy whined about the hull's rocker and lack of holding course, yada yada compared to his buddy's differently designed hull. So what, this is the only consideration? Does this mean that this boat is the lesser deserving the much lower rating? A hull design that is pretty much the most popular type in the industry?

I agree with your argument about the specifics, that makes for a good review, though in this case I don't think this particular reviewer is being entirely fair.

Mitch, again I disagree, if you're again talking about Greg's post. Greg's review spelled out chapter and verse just what went wrong with his Marlin. Unless we conclude that he is just making stuff up, what happened to him is what happened. Obviously we can't conclude that every Marlin (or Nemo) will disintegrate as did Greg's, but that fact that these things occurred should make any would-be purchaser look closely and carefully at the product. I know that SK's remarks about the Epic 18X made me check out my 16X quite thoroughly.

Now if you're discussing the review of the P&H boat, again, reading about somebody's dissatisfaction with the hull rocker and course-holding lets me know that it is something I should look out for, unless I am already familiar with that boat's handling. My point is that happy talk about kayaks is available by the truckload--I just read two reviews copied from P-net of somebody's NDK Explorer for sale on our local paddling Message Board, and you would think that it could become the basis for a new religion. But it's the UNhappy talk about a kayak that is the most useful to a would-be buyer--something to check out prior to purchase. And, if at all possible, Try before you Buy!

I guess in making the strongest case possible, you are asserting (again) that I would prefer not to hear horror stories or disregard valuable first-hand experiences. You go one step further and draw a connection between SK's critical reviews and this thread as if they were practically one in the same.

To assume that all reviews are of value because of the pointing out things is not true - that is my point. The inverse is the person who chronically argues in favor of a particular product. Hence, this is why we read SK. So to rate the P&H Cetus a 5/10 because "it can't cut through waves as efficiently" is largely a waste of time to read. Yes, hull rocker, is something to consider, but getting info in the form of a largely ignorant rant isn't particularly useful. And lowering a rating on a good boat also does more harm than good. I'm sorry, every mfgr. has issues, but consumers should have the proper prospective when making a review. When I write about my P&H, I'm certainly going to point out how I have issues with the skeg and have seen this trend in other P&H boats, though I will do it in a manner that is helpful and not simply as a therapeutic reaction to some perhaps well deserved frustration.

RE: Reviews.

Most reviews offer information that helps a person narrow down choices. Most help bring attention to different traits a boat has. The rockered hull may get a low score from one user but another reader may want that boat due to the rocker viewed as favourable.

Reviews help. An intel reader can read through reviews. I like yellow but some poeple want red because it's the fastest color they make.

-0-

As far as the skeg problems associated with P&H sea kayaks: there seems to be many reviews of P&H boats having skeg issues.

Read reviews at http://www.paddling.net/Reviews/showKayaks.html?manf=122 for P&H boats and it's easy to notice that pattern.

Another source for P&H reviews is this dealer (no longer...) which used to point out P&H skeg problems: http://www.atlantickayaktours.com/pages/Retail/boats/P-H-Kayaks.shtml even indicating "expensive skeg repair"

OK, this is becoming a circular argument - I'm WRONG. YOU WIN. ALL REVIEWS ARE INVALUABLE !!

Equipment reviews and comments posted on the Sea Kayaker forum are welcome and encouraged. We do insist that reviews not trash a product, there is too often two sides to those stories. Instead we ask that when you point out what you consider to be a negative feature or a lacking safety issue you also offer constructive criticism as to how the manufacturer or an individual paddler might correct the problem. I try to make sure manufacturers are aware of these comments to help them improve the products we use. To me one of the most important purposes of a forum is the sharing of knowledge.

Mike, have there been any instances of a kayak being trashed on this forum? Greg's Marlin review is highly negative, but he cited detail after detail, chapter and verse, concerning both the boat's perceived defects and the manufacturer's lack of zeal in correcting them or in making Greg whole. No trash there, IMHO.

The reason I stress, over and over, that people examine and test-paddle boats that interest them, is that kayak reviews, certainly P-net kayak reviews, tell you almost nothing. I challenge anyone to run their eye down any twenty or fifty or whatever number of P-net reviews, and count up the 8, 9, and 10 out of 10 final judgements. Why is this? A) it's been pointed out over and over that kayakers have a strong psychological vested interest in affirming that they made exactly the right choice when they purchased kayak model X; and B) it is hard to design a terrible boat if your basic goal is to make something "about" 17 feet long, "about" 22 inches wide, and pointy at both ends--which is the overwhelming majority of "sea kayaks".

With all of these happy owners and happy reviews, the ones that can convey actual, useful information are those that point out where the manufacturer has used shoddy materials or construction techniques, or has failed to make good on some obvious though possibly unique flaw in one's own boat. SEA KAYAKER's reviews are much the better, as they provide a lot of hydrostatics and calculated performance data, though SK's reviews range from the favorable to the very favorable (undoubtedly for reason B above).

Over the years, I've owned 4 widely differing sea kayaks, and have enjoyed paddling all of them, learning to appreciate the strengths of each, and the flaws/weaknesses of each, and accepting them. It's the kayaking that I love--I'd be out there paddling a coffin or a cement tray or a canoe if there were no kayaks at all. But for those for whom getting exactly the "right" boat is essential, you really should try before you buy.

Magic, I agree with much of what you say, but I have found a lot of reviews on paddling. net to be critical and informative. I agree that one should test paddle any kayak that might be of interest, but on the normal test paddle, you are likely to get as many negative impressions as positive ones.

I have found that initial impressions are mostly wrong, or at least less than complete. I have had my newest boat for one year now and I'm still learning things about the boat. I'm glad I didn't base my choice of boat on the test paddle I did, because I wasn't very impressed. I was used to a whole different type of boat (which I still have) and was comparing its performance and feel with the new boat. After one year and lots of miles, the new boat has turned out to be more than I ever imagined a kayak could be. I could say the same for all of my boats--well, all but one (a canoe).

Maybe I'm just a little slow, but I believe it takes a lot of experience under a lot of conditions to really make a meaningful assessment of a kayak. So by all means, test paddle, but don't be persuaded for, or against a boat on that basis only. Of course there can be an overwhelming issue that kills the deal and I've experienced a fair share of that.

Here are the sorts of things that can be evaluated by a test inspection/paddle or two: Weight of boat; comfort of seat/footrests/legroom/footroom; construction basics including hatches, bulkheads, storage capacity, decklines/bungees, rudder/skeg, fit and finish; stability; speed/ease of paddling; ease of rolling/bracing; overall posture and comfort while paddling.

Later, more challenging conditions will reveal more about rudder or skeg effectiveness; broaching or weathercocking tendencies; and wetness or dryness of ride (as into wind and waves). But I think that the earlier testing will have already established the patterns that can be expected during more vigorous conditions.