Page 1 of 1
(Older) AirFrame vs. (Newer) AdvancedFrame Models
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 9:53 pm
I'd like to better understand the differences between the (older) AirFrame and (newer) AdvancedFrame models. I note that the AirFrame had five chambers vs. seven chambers in the AdvancedFrame. Are there other differences that would preclude accessories for the AdvancedFrame models being used in the AirFrame? For example, would a Backbone or Dropstitch Floor designed for the AdvancedFrame work equally well in an older AirFrame?
Thanks in advance.
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 9:18 am
Depends on what year Airframe you are talking about.
The only one that had the biggest differences was the first edition 2002 model. It did not have deck lift tubes in it and instead had plastic forms to make the top deck more rigid. It also had a plastic form attached to the ribs inside and the graphics and material were different.
In 2003 we incorporated the deck lifts thus eliminating the plastic forms for the deck and kept the plastic forms on the ribs.
In 2004 we changed the plastic forms on the ribs to the plastic form inserts that slide into the pockets on the deck in the bow and stern. Graphics were also changed.
2005 stayed the same.
2006 we changed from the Bravo valve to the Advanced Elements Spring Valve
All versions since then have stayed the same except for graphic changes and the deck material is now has ripstop honeycomb pattern.
2002 and 2003 were called the Airframe but we needed to change the name in 2004 to Advanced Frame
The Backbone and Dropstitch floor will work in all years of the kayak.
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 9:58 am
Thanks very much for your response to my inquiry. Your explanation of the design evolution has been very helpful.
I was somewhat confused by the original packaging slipsheet that called out five chambers vs. my hazy recollection of the design and chamber count. I managed to locate a QA Checklist dated 25 June 2003, so now I have a better appreciation of where our kayaks fall relative to features / design. It's also been helpful to understand the nature of the name change, which had suggested to me a greater differentiation between models than what you have described. It's reassuring to know that currently available options are still applicable to our models.
Regards -- Rob