Page 1 of 1

RPM vs RPM max

Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 12:42 pm
by Joe L
Wondering what peoples opinions where on the RPM max compared to the normal RPM?
At 73 kilos guess I am pretty light for it, would it still be ok for some easy down river play?

Re: RPM vs RPM max

Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:35 pm
by Catastronaut
It's been a long time since I've paddled either, but the RPM max seemed huge compared to the RPM. I'm 6ยด3" and used to be 90-95kg at the time (~20 yrs ago). I could squeeze in the RPM and it was ridiculous good fun, stern squirts were effortless. The RPM max required some good eddyline or a lot of power/good technique to sink the stern.

To answer your question: I don't think the RPM max would make a lot of sense at your weight. I always thought, that the RPM/RPM max were good fun when driven in a slalomesque style. Never could cartwheel either, even though it had been done at the time... At your weight, I think it would be even challenging to sink the stern of the RPM max except in a few selected spots. Therefore (RPM max): Downriver play at 73kg: I don't think so. River running at 73 kg: probably ok, but don't expect sporty stern. At your weight I think you can forget about getting the bow under for cartwheels etc...

Re: RPM vs RPM max

Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 5:58 pm
by Palm Equipment
RPM all the way if you are 73Kg. I'm 85 and it is the bee's knees.

Re: RPM vs RPM max

Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 6:12 pm
by Ripley92
RPM max would be way to big! There is quite a difference! I'm 90 and usually go in a RPM for some easy play.

Re: RPM vs RPM max

Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:41 pm
by AlexC
Why not borrow my RPM to help you decide.
Then if you want to buy it, you could do that too :-)

Alex in Manc