Can a single kayak model really be built in different sizes?

[Shadepine]

So for years I’ve owned a Wilderness Systems Tsunami 165. The Tsunami is probably one of (if not the) most widely varied lines of any single kayak in history. Over the years there has been a Tsunami 120, 125, 130, 135, 145, 165, and 175. That’s a lot of models for one kayak design!

It goes without saying that these are not all the same boat. In fact, it would be fascinating to line every different Tsunami that was ever made up next to each other and do detailed measurement comparisons. But how similar are all these boats—beyond the name “Tsunami?”

My question is prompted because I recently bought a second-hand Tsunami 175 (17-1/2 feet long). For some reason, before buying this boat, I assumed it would be identical to my Tsunami 165…but 6 inches longer at either end and capable of carrying 50lbs more gear. I’ve only paddled it one time so far (for about 5 miles in calm conditions)…and my initial impression is that the 175 is a very different kayak than the 165.

The first thing I noticed is that the entire cockpit area feels significantly larger than the 165 (which is already roomy). I’m 5’10" and 210lbs, and I felt like I was swimming around in the 175’s enormous cockpit. The next thing I noticed is that (possibly because the deck right in front of the cockpit feels higher), the tip of the bow feels much lower than it does in the 165. In other words, in the 165, you feel as though the bow is higher (more upswept?) and rides better over waves. In the 175, the bow feels lower, and closer to the water…so tends to go through waves rather than over them.

This got me thinking about how boat designers take one model of kayak and modify it to be bigger or smaller, and/or to suit larger or smaller paddlers. Is there a “right” way to do this? Is it even possible without essentially designing a totally different kayak? Other questions on my mind are…

Do you simply take the smaller boat and reproduce it exactly…then just extend its length without changing anything else?

Do you scale the boat’s dimensions up or down in every direction until you have the desired length?

Do you just change the size of the cockpit while leaving the rest of the boat the same?

I’m sure the answer is some variation of “It depends on your goal.” I also wonder, do kayak designers actually build working prototypes and test them on the water at different sizes with different-sized paddlers? Are there boatbuilding formulas they know that can provide most of the answers?

My assumption is that designing a kayak is as much art as science. In the case of the Tsunami 175 versus the 165, I have this nagging feeling that the 175 is not a “well-scaled” version of the 165, and that perhaps a few less-than-ideal design decisions were made. Which doesn’t make the 175 a bad kayak…just that it feels like a very different kayak—perhaps not even deserving of the “Tsunami” name.

Because when you give several kayaks of different sizes the same name…it’s reasonable for people to expect that the basic characteristics of that kayak will remain the same.

If anyone has any knowledge about how kayak designers scale a given design up or down, I’d love to be enlightened!

[Peter-CA]

Boat manufacturers could make a single model in different sizes, but they often don’t. This seems more common with American brands than Brits.

I think Confluence (parent company, or maybe prior parent company now), of Wilderness Systems, Perception, Dagger, and others, more breaks out their brands and models based on designed usage and target customer. Dagger kayaks are designed for more moving water, with their sea kayaks (Alchemy, Stratos) being playful. Perception is a cost conscious brand, so would be speced out with a lower cost seat, maybe no day hatch, and the like. Wilderness Systems is the premium brand, coming with the better seat and day hatches and the like.

Within WS, the lines are made to fit a niche, and this niche is the characteristic they try to bring across and they hope customers look for. I look at Tempest is a higher-performance, skegged touring kayak with a narrower hull and lower volume, while the Tsunami is a bit more wider, stable, higher-volume, often (always?) with rudders, and often more beginner-friendly touring kayak. Within those niches, boat design can vary a lot, to the point that the different sizes may not seem to even relate to each other.

Add to that that long running lines also change over time. Similar to how the Honda Civic of the 80s is a much smaller car to the one available now, kayaks have also changed over the years moving away from boats for multi-week expeditions in condition to ones more suited to a day trip in more protected areas. Higher volume where people sit, larger cockpit openings, and the like.

Product that have shorter runs, particularly from the Brits, do seem to do naming/sizing better. For example, the P&H Virgos come in LV, MV, and HV. If you look at them side by side, they all look basically the same. The volume of the boat is the difference. And when they come up with a boat that is somewhat different, they give it a new name - Valley used to make the Avocet, but when they renewed the product, they gave it a new name of Sirona. Many people likely would look at an Avocet and Sirona side by side and not see the differences.

That said, be happy that WS does bring products together in at least basic niche, and the products are at least listed by size. Epic product naming drives me crazy, as they seem to be numbered based on when the model was designed. So a V14 is not 14 feet long (actually 21’ long). Their touring kayaks are closer, as a 14X is 14’ and an 18X is 18’, but not perfect as the 18X Double is 22’.

This is my feel as a heavy user of boats, but likely not 100% correct. Someone who work in retail for these brands or works for a manufacturer may have a better feel for this.

[Shadepine]

@Peter-CA

Products that have shorter runs, particularly from the Brits, do seem to do naming/sizing better. For example, the P&H Virgos come in LV, MV, and HV. If you look at them side by side, they all look basically the same. The volume of the boat is the difference. And when they come up with a boat that is somewhat different, they give it a new name - Valley used to make the Avocet, but when they renewed the product, they gave it a new name of Sirona. Many people likely would look at an Avocet and Sirona side by side and not see the differences.

This is definitely how I’d expect American manufacturers to do it. And my observations on the seemingly big differences between the Tsunami 165 and 175 are only based on a couple hours so far in the 175. As I paddle it more, I might come to appreciate its differences more.

And I’m still interested in understanding exactly how kayak designers scale a given boat up or down. (Just scaling every dimension proportionally? Versus keeping some dimensions the same while scaling others?) I’m not an engineer or physicist…but I seem to recall hearing that if one set of dimensions works well, that doesn’t guarantee that adding “10” to every number and building the identical boat will be batter or faster or more stable. (Things seem to change with size and behave differently.) This is probably all “Boatbuilding 101” stuff…but I’m not a boatbuilder. LOL

[willowleaf]

Of course they rescale dimensions other than the length so that the volume of the kayak will support a paddler with different body metrics at an optimal waterline. The experts who design and build skin on frame kayaks (like Brian Schulz of Cape Falcon Kayaks) take all that into account when they custom build SOF’s or offer plans for them for DIY builders.

Your Tsu 175 is scaled for larger paddlers who may have fit issues with other models and that would include wider beam (for larger keisters), higher foredeck to accommodate longer feet (a common problem for guys with size 13 and up feet) as well as overall more volume to displace the right amount of water for the paddler’s weight to achieve optimal waterline and stability. That deck rise is probably what you are noticing that makes the bow seem “lower” in proportion. And, of course, your weight in a larger volume kayak is going to change the waterline compared to what it is in a lower volume one so the boat is going to perform differently in a 175 for you than a 165. You might try putting a gallon jug of water in each of the bow and stern hatches and see if the 175 feels more like the 165.

The Tsunami 140 and 145 in their FORMER configurations were clear examples of this – the 140 was for mid size folks in average weight range and the 145 was for slightly larger folks who were a bit heavier and wider in the beam (like stocky guys). The current iteration of the 140 is that they are making it an inch wider so it’s the same beam as the 145. I seem to recall that the recommended" paddler weight range used to be 110 to 180 for the Tsunami 140, which they intended to target the female market. But as the average weight for American woman has crept up from 145 to 160 they have probably expanded the volume of the 140 to fit more of that target buyer cohort. In this case – kind of a symptom of the “size” creep in clothing that has allowed Americans to pretend that we aren’t way fatter than we were 40 years ago. Also there seems to be a growing trend towards 14 foot kayaks because they fit more easily in people’s overstuffed garages. They’ve long had too many models, IMHO. At least they dumped the 135, though they should have kept the SP kid’s and super small paddler model.

It would be interesting to locate archives of the specs of the Tsunamis over the years and see how they’ve changed. Fewer companies seem to regularly post the internal volumes of their boats – probably because those concerned about cargo capacity for overnight touring are in a very small minority.

Personally, I view WIlderness Systems as a pretty lazy company in terms of design and models. Their Tsunamis are very popular and widely marketed so they retain the name for most of their output even though the performance range will be obviously quite different with such varying beams and lengths. I must confess I’m not a fan. I have paddled 140s, 160s and a 125 over the years, having rented them in the past (they are favorites with rental stables) and also swapped boats with friends who had them (and loved them) – in most cases the swaps were so THEY could try out my more unusual kayaks. The Tsunamis are adequate and decently outfitted but my impression has always been that Tsunamis are heavy and barge-like, track well but are balky to turn and slow to accelerate. My impression has always been that they prioritized primary stability over most other factors. That limits performance but doesn’t scare off first time buyers or those too nervous to adapt to boats with solid secondary. Was always glad to get out of a Tsunami and back into my lighter and sleeker boats. WS now has the Tempest series which are narrower and lower volume, though they still stress cockpit comfort and stability over advanced performance.

As to other makers who have a variety of models under the same name, those are generally specific to certain tweaks to the design not just to fit different sized paddlers but to create special performance OR because they are made of different materials. The famous SKUK Romany sea kayaks are one example: they make composite Classic for mid sized paddlers, the nearly identical roto mold plastic version, the composite Surf for mid to larger paddlers (more foot room , larger cockpit) and the Excel, which is not only for extra large paddlers but has features that make it more suitable for rough conditions.

[Peter-CA]

Too bad @flatpick is no longer active here, as he had some significant impact on the designs of the WS Tempest lines.

[Shadepine]

Thanks for the good thoughts @willowleaf — I’d assumed that different sized boats were mainly for different sized paddlers…although longer boats are also better-suited for multi-day trips (a pretty small market).

I totally get your thoughts on the WS boats as not exactly being “nimble, high-performance” kayaks. I recently acquired a 2013 Eddyline Raven…and it’s like paddling a Porsche compared with a Ford F150, LOL.

Right now, my primary interest in paddling is long-distance, multi-day trips…and/or longer-distance workout paddles (like paddling 6-8 miles after work in summer—much farther than most people paddle even on a day trip). So my focus is on three things:
*** speed**
*** straight-line tracking**
*** comfort**
*** gear-hauling**

The Tsunami 165 is IMO a great balance between all those things…and I hope the 175 will be even better for those same priorities (and I think it will be). I know of at least two people who paddled the Inside Passage in 175’s and they both said the boat was great for that.

At the moment I have no interest in surfing or rock gardening…so maneuverability and acceleration are low priorities (that might change in the future).

Back to boat design, it seems at least possible to design a boat for the same paddler weight range…but with improved speed/more cargo space for longer trips…or maybe with reduced specs for easier portability, lighter weight, etc. But I’m guessing the top reason for “same model, different length” is different-sized paddlers.

[Kevburg]

You are talking about marketing decisions to drive sales - they can call a product whatever they want. Think of all the very different cars that have carried the Mustang or Corvette badge.

[sing]

Side track - It’s too bad. But I think it’s become more trouble than positive returns for industry folks to actively participate in sites like this. Way, way back I remember have a few conversations with Andy (?), a designer from WS. Same with Matt Broze from Mariner Kayaks. PNet Salty was also familar with if not involved with industry types. Nick Shrade used to be active Boatertalk (?) subforum for builders. Malcom Percy/Mega Kayaks was also active in Boatertalk surf kayak subforum as was Corran Addison back when he designed for Riot Kayaks. Reg Lake showed every so often in the West Coast Paddlers Forums. Brian Schulz/Cape Falcon was very active early on in Qajaq/USA.

It’s a “tight line” to walk, as sometimes the discussions devolve. Look at what happened most recently with Joey Schott. Best to let the “marketing” folks take on the outward communications.

-sing

[Jyak]

@willowleaf is amazingly on point for not actually owning and preferring a Tsunami model. However, her negative comments highlight characteristic more so than unfavorable aspects of the design. Being interested in nimble perfomance crafts would put her at odds with most of the Wilderness Systems kayaks.

The Tsunami is often referred to as barge-like, and I have commented so myself. As suggested above, the full sized models ending in **5 are designed for load carrying and full sized paddlers. @Shadepine, your comparison between the 165 and 175 version remind me of my sister’s impression of paddling the 145. Although she had no objection to paddling her 140 Pungo Duralite (38" wide, 13" deck), the 145 with a 24.5" width, 16" deck, felt too extreme for her. Consistent with willowleaf’s observation, the older 140 Tsunami model at 24" wide, 15" deck fits is best suited for paddlers between 145 abd 180 lbs, and it fits her like a glove (she’s 145 lbs and about 5’9" tall; the handling characteristics begin to deminish when the paddler approaches 180 lbs). My older sister managed impressive speeds and negotiated some gnarly conditions at times with a greater level of comfort than I felt.

Ironically, I transitioned from the 140 Pungo Duralite to the 125 Tsunami (the 12’6" long model vs the 12’9" version, 26" wide). Despite overloading it by about 69 lbs, it performed well and could maintain avg speeds of 4.4 to 4.6 mph over 16 mile trips. Both the 145 and 175 could manage 4.8 to 5 mph avg speed over 21.65 miles. While not stellar by race standards, the performance potential for a tubby cargo boat is far from dismal. However, that description can be misleading. @Craig_S has demonstrated that the 175 model can be a formidable adversary under the right conditions, even against sleek boats.

I find it ironic that I can “recall” any more descriptive performance data or cross comparisons on any kayaks that match the evaluations offered by @Shadepine, @Craig_S, and @E.T.

What stands out with the WS line is the progression from the Pungo through the Tempest. Over twenty years of paddling, I haven’t felt threatened or uncomfortable with any conditions that I faced on the Upper Chesapeake Bay. From the 21" wide 120 Tsunsmi SP that my 12 yr old grandaughter uses to the 140, as well as my larger 145 and 175, the perfomance is confidence inspiring, even for inexperienced paddlers like me.

[Shadepine]

@Jyak

@Craig_S has demonstrated that the 175 model can be a formidable adversary under the right conditions, even against sleek boats.

I agree! On my first paddle in the Tsunami 175, I didn’t feel like i was going fast at all…and I was putting out an amount of effort that would only get me 4.9-5.0mph in my 165…so I was surprised when after a couple miles I checked and I was averaging 5.3mph in the 175.

[Jyak]

I think the mult-chine hull is more efficient than most are willing to credit. Rounded chines are considered favorable for speed. If you look at the WS hull, it’s essentially a stepped rounded chine cross section, not very different than a round chine. The theoretical speed difference between a 16 and 17 ft hull is about .2 mph. Compare the specs for the two boats:

Looks like you possibly inadvertently demonstrated the theoretical advantage of a longer hull. On paper, the width of the 165 is only .25 inches narrower and a few pounds lighter. Although width of the boat adds drag, it can be overcome with more power. However, no matter what formula you use to calculate hull speed, the ratio when comparing different lengths is relatively linear. Hull speed creates a relatively hard limit. It’s similar to approaching the sound barrier but the wall is water (bow wave and trough). A paddler with your potential for power can overcome drag, yet still not be able to climb out of the trough.

@szihn and I discussed the sensation he experiences at full power. He explained that his Chatham feels like it’s climbing a hill - which is the hull speed. The 175 Tsunami can hit 6 to 6.2 mph for short durations of .25 to .3 miles, but it uses a lot of anerobic power output. Your post gives me hope that I can reach my goal of an average speed of 5.2 mph in the 175. It might be achievable with the new 260 cm paddle. The 175 Tsunami isn’t a race boat at 24 inches wide, but it’s no slouch either. You just have to work at it.

[eckilson]

You see this in canoes as well. Back in the day (ancient history) Bell Canoeworks had the “fire” boats – Flashfire (13’) and Wildfire (14’). They were similar in design in ways that identified them as “fire” boats (composite hulls with significant tumblehome and symmetrical rocker) but were very different boats to paddle with the Flashfire for smaller paddlers and the Wildfire for larger paddlers.

Fast forward a few years, and Bell wanted to make a Royalex version of the very popular Wildfire. The Royalex hull is similar in dimensions, but doesn’t have the sharp lines of the composite version and has asymmetrical rocker (stern rocker of 1.5", bow rocker 2.5”) to improve tracking. I have both, and they are both great boats, but the Royalex version paddles different than the composite version. After a couple of years, Bell changed the name of the Royalex boat to the Yellowstone Solo. (Composite Wildfire vs Royalex Yellowstone Solo)

You can see the same thing in whitewater canoes. In 1995, Mad River introduced the hugely successful Outrage. The max recommended weight for the Outrage was 180-lbs, and there were lots of larger paddlers who wanted a larger version. In 1999 Mad River introduced the Outrage X. The Outrage X is a foot longer (13’) and 1.5” wider (27”) than the original Outrage. It stayed true to the spec’s of the original Outrage, but is a very different boat.

Fast forward again to today. At 230-lbs, I am well over the recommended weight for the original Royalex Outrage, but I have been happily paddling one for years. My only complaint - at my size it can be a very wet ride. A couple of months ago I purchased a composite Outrage from Millbrook Boats. The dimensions of the composite and Royalex versions are basically the same (the 20-year-old Royalex version is ¼ shorter and narrower, which may be shrinkage of the Royalex) but with a stiffer hull, the composite version turns crisper and doesn’t dive into waves like the Royalex version. Its a much drier ride. (Royalex vs composite Outrage)

Change the length, change the width, change the depth, change the hull shape, change the material and you have a different boat, regardless of how it is branded.

[szihn]

Reading some books on making kayaks, the consensus is that hard chines give an easier ability to edge turn and a more noticeable feel for secondary stability and soft chines give easier edging but with no feel of secondary stability but allow a faster speed at a set amount of power applied.
It is a set of generalities, but from the kayaks I own and those I have bought and sold so far, it does seem to be a good rule of thumb.

I found the Chatham17 a bit tricky when I was first trying to learn how to edge turn it quickly. It was quite a jump from an Old Town Loon 106 to a Chatham17. I did A LOT OF PRACTICE WITH RE-ENTRIES. But I got good at it, (both reentry ----- and finally edge turns too)

Recently I got 2 Rebel kayaks, a TOC and a Jara and with the TOC I find I can edge turn it very well. The Jara also turns well but I have to use some force to the body movement to get a fast turn with it. I say the TOC has power steering and the Jara has manual steering.

The TOC is my easiest turning kayak, the Jara is the hardest to edge turn, tightly and the Chatham is in the middle of the 2 Rebels.

Another very maneuverable sea kayak is my Eddyline Fathom, but I had to make a foam masik to get good control with the Fathom because it had a higher foredeck and my thighs didn’t reach the braces unless I set the foot pegs closer then I like.

In the last 5 or 6 years I have now bought close to 40 kayaks from shorter rec kayaks to an old P&H 18’ 4" narrow sea kayak. I bought many of them specifically to get them to people who wanted to start kayaking, and in about 1/3 of the cases got them to people who had a kayak already but wanted another one. In those 40 kayaks I have bought there are 3 I intend to keep forever and I am hoping to find 1 more .
I used, enjoyed and then sold the others. But in doing that, I have learned a lot. I was able to paddle most of them.

There are noticeable differences in them to be sure, in how they respond and feel. But even those that differ greatly, the “feel” I have,----- with my size and and weight-- was often different from what other paddlers said they feel. So when describing how any given kayak responds to me is NOT always going to be how it responds to someone else.

I weight 185 pounds. But I am only 5 feet 6 inches tall. I have a friend, Sig, who is 180 pounds but 6 feet tall. His legs are longer so his knees would arch higher if we leave the pegs in the same place. But he moves then to fit and then his center of mass is higher up then mine is because he’s 6" taller. His COM is not 6" higher off the water because his leg length is where most of that 6" comes from. So how would we calculate this? I don’t know!

My friend Thor is 6 feet 5 inches and 270 pounds. He has 36" inseams and a size 13 foot. He is a very big man with a lot of weight in his arms and chest. When we place more weight in a kayak, and then that weight is also higher up off the seat, the momentum of his weight has far more leverage over the “tilting” of a kayak at any given angel of roll. So the “feel” he gets is extremely different then what I feel if we are both in the same kayak.

What I have come to believe is simply that if we are somewhat close in fit, body size to hull, decks and seat, anyone can learn to paddle about any kayak. Until someone has a good amount of time in a kayak, trying to make small changes to improve individual performance may be a waist of time. Not a total waist, but learning how to use a comfortable kayak very well before you start to experiment may be part of the foundational understanding of how others differ. In other words, you have to have “a starting line”.
You need some point “to measure from”.

I just last week totally removed the seat and cut away about 40% of the seat hangers on my new Rebel TOC. I have short, thick legs and in the last 6 months I have tried all I could to find the best fit in the TOC and never could get really comfortable because there simply was not enough room side to side to allow me the ability to pivot on my butt for best control. And in the days I’d be out for 7-9 hours I’d have bruising on the outside of both thighs where I am stuck between the 2 seat hangers. So I cut the seat out of this brand new kayak completely. I made a seat pad of Ensolite and a back block to give me something to back up to in the cockpit. Removal of the seat and the hangers made a WORLD of difference. Now I am totally comfortable in the TOC and it also allows me even better edge control. Now my legs can splay outward to a place they are very comfortable and the difference in feel is like night and day. I easily edge the TOC over now, so much that having water lap at my waist is normal, and it’s easy to hold that amount of edge. When I edge over hard that way, and add some brace stokes to the move, I can turn that 17 foot 10 inch kayak very quickly and it’s not even hard to do.

Anyway, my ramblings are to illustrate some points. One person can’t tell another what a particular kayak is going to feel like and how it will respond unless both kayakers are close to the same size in height weight and girth. There are simply too many variables to consider.

I would recommend going to paddlers events (something I do not have the ability to do because of where I live) to have an opportunity to try different kayaks, even if you have no intention of ever buying one. It’s simply a good way to broaden your understanding of how different designs and subtle differences preform for you.

[Jyak]

I started in the 125 Tsunsmi and overloaded it by about 69 lbs. Then upgraded to the 145, overloading it by around 35 lbs. At the time I didn’t understand how to calculate a safe load, and the ride was much wetter. Upgrading to the 175 Tsunami solved that problem. After dropping 25 lbs, the 145 is closer to my weight class, which made it easier to control and much drier. The only time water washes into the cockpit is when paddling directly into heavy waves. Although it has been a few years since I returned to paddling the 175 (last year was the first time in at least 6 years), it now seems less controllable, possibly due to how the lighter weigh changes the load water line, which exposes more of the upper profile to wind influence, while offering less of the hull for lateral resistance to weather cocking. Fortunately, it remains a drier boat. Each boat now has greater load capacity since I lost weight. Since the scale of each boat remained the same, the change in weight revealed a noticable performance difference.

My goal is to drop another 20 lbs, which will place me at 210 lbs. That should give me the same paddling experience as Shadepine, which might help me exchange notes to better understand the link between weight class and performance…

Since load capacity depends on displacement, the only way to increase displacement is to increase length, width or draft. Even though the 140 Tsunami is only 6 inches shorter and 1/2 inch narrower, the dimensional changes puts it out of my weight class. However, I noticed that my sister being 100 lbs lighter could traverse sections of choppy waves much faster than I could. If I stopped for a 30 second water break, I couldn’t catch her.

[Jyak]

Novice kayakers need to be careful when seeking advice about kayaking. While you and I agree on so many areas about kayaking, we seek entirely different styles of boats. The same is true of paddling technique. While we both prefer low angle paddling with long paddles we approach the technique differently. I introduced you to the Kalliste paddle, but the issues you encounted actually helped me to understand the paddle and improve my technique considerably. The same is true from comparing notes with Craig_S. Although our paddling technique is diametrically opposed, I learned a lot from observing him paddling, analysing his video and going over his heart rate, oxygen, speed charts and his ratio of aerobic/anerobic energy output. His charts highlighted similar features in my chsrts. While Craig spends his down time when he can, by sustaining his physical conditioning, my only true structured conditioning is kayaking. Craig isn’t stronger than his competitors or faster because of his boat; in fact he changes boats the way golfers change clubs. When he wins a race, it’s because he knows his power range and races smarter.

Kayakers like me are not able to use the rigorous regimen that shapes a competitive athlete. Believing that a couch potato can paddle like an olympic sprinter is either tunnel visioned or naive.

Consequently my to approach to paddling is to improve efficiency rather than chase raw power. The gains in speed may not be as productive, but I found that it’s much easier on muscles and joints, and it offers greater energy output and comfort for long distance trips. One analogy is how I can drive my car on two different trip - one under full jack rabbit acceleration, and the other characterized by gentle accelerator pressure. One way I can get 15.2 mpg, and the other way manage 29.1 mpg, or 300 miles vs 540 miles, on one tank of gas. Your body only contains so much stored energy. You can go fast or go far, but you can’t go far fast. I found (but I could be wrong) that once you deplete the locally stored glycogen, you can’t effectively switch over to metabolizing the remaining stores aerobically, but if you warm up and stimulate your aerobic metabolism, your locally stored energy remains on standby. Now if anyone know a better way, or can contradict that, now is a good opportunity to explain how.

[Shadepine]

@Jyak

Although it has been a few years since I returned to paddling the 175 (last year was the first time in at least 6 years), it now seems less controllable…

Again, this only based on one 2-hour paddle (I’ll paddle it more this week), but the Tsunami 175 felt far less maneuverable to me than the 165 (maneuverable with sweep strokes and leans) and even the rudder felt sluggish compared with the 165. It worked, but the boat turned more slowly even with hard right or left rudder. The 175’s rudder is plastic, which kind of surprised me because the rudder on my 165 is metal (aluminum)…but they might all be plastic now? It’s stiff plastic, but not as stiff as the metal rudder.

[Jyak]

Your perception mirrors mine, but my older model 175 has an aluminum rudder. I agree that the rudder on the 175 is sluggish and ill suited for turning. Developing effective technique takes time, but it pays big dividend in the longrun. I agree with another member who commented that using the rudder seems counterintuitive.

Despite owning a 125, 145, and 175, I gravitated to the 145 as the go to boat, because of the lighter weight, ease of controlling it, and sufficient nimbleness even in hairpin turns in twisting salt mashes, where the 125 would be better suited. The primary reason for using the longer boat is that getting to the 1.5 mile marsh trail is 10 miles of open water. I learned the value of edging on the 145, to the point that I’ve been able to isolate the technique of tracking and turning to edging, paddling is devotrdvto maintaining speed, and the rudder is used to assist straight tracking to counter weather cocking; otherwise, the rudder remains stowed until winds exceed 8 mph. I haven’t paddled the 175 on flat water, so I don’t know how the 175 behaves other than on tidal water. My impression is that contrary current from converging rivers, irregular river bottoms, tides, and wind driven waves act on the longer hull. Adding 3 feet to the hull probably exceeds the ability of the 99.7 sq in Kalliste to leverage the kayak as effectively as the 145. Consequently, I’m still learning how to control the 175. It’s a very different boat under 8 mph.

Last year, I paddled part of the season until the rudder bolts fell out. So my impressions might be slightly skewed.

The only drawback of the 175 is the weight and length.

[szihn]

John, when I edge my kayaks I do a gentle angle where one side drops about 2" lower then the other for small corrections to stay on course, but when actually turning (anything from about 35 to 180 degrees) I edge over to a point the skirt is all that’s keeping me from swamping. ANY chop, even 6" of chop, would swamp me with no spray skirt if I turn.

So…how are you doing that with no water getting into your cockpit?

I know you don’t use a spray skirt, but I don’t know how you can turn considering you are heavier then I am and you are paddling a kayak 14.5 feet long whereas most of my kayaks are 17 feet or more. You are far heavier then I am. Is the deck and combing just higher on the Tsunami?
The only kayak I own that I can edge hard and not need a skirt is my Eddyline Fathom, but it’s combing is about 4" higher then my Chatham17, my Perception Sea Lion, or either my Rebel TOC or Rebel Jara. But how high over waterline at the rear of the combing I really have never measured.

When I was learning to edge turn I viewed these 2 videos and this kind of turn became my goal.

The Haghighi

Learn the Fastest Sea Kayak Turning Stroke - The Deep Diggity Dig | Adventure Kayak | Rapid Media

I took about 6 months to learn to do it well in all my kayaks. Now I can do it with kayaks that have beams from 20.25 inches to about 26 inches.
Because I can do a fast turn like you see in these vids, I can also turn less quickly too. But in nearly all my turns I get my combing close to or under the water.

I know you use edge turns all the time and that you don’t use a skirt. but how?

[Jyak]

When I paddle open water, I’m typically going from point A to B.

I’ve explained on several occasions in the open forum that I don’t condsider myself to be a kayaker, because I have no technical skils and have no desire to learn them. I’ve asked you on several occasions out of curiosity why there are so many techniques for turning and why it’s so critical to turn on a dime. I assume it’s to play in surf or to go somewhere, but i don’t really need to turn. My goal is to go somewhere, then turn around and go back. There is very little to see in between, which is the reason I focused on improving speed and efficiency. Heres an example.

I’m about one mile from the yellow arrow, which is a 90° right turn from the Gunpowder channel at the point. Incidentally, Battery Point is the datum location to report tidal reading. The black arrow indicates the eastern shore which is about 10 miles distant (one 180° turn), and the blue arrow points to Poole Island that’s about a 14 mile trip if you circumnavigate the island (a few 90° turns).

Even on my test course (leg 3 is pictured above), it only involves four 90° turns and one 180° turn.

.

That was a windy day, because you can see the drift at the point where I took a 30 second water stop. It also shows corrections to compensate from side waves.

The reason I typically travel solo is that the trips become an endless series of loops, and then I still have tp paddle one stroke for the other person’s five. I no longer sign up for that.

My grandaughters are improving because they’re mimicking my stroke, so I make sure I go out with them when they’re available. Most people I’ve met have no desire to progress beyond mediocre. The only reason the speed registered I believe 2.7 avg mph is that I typically try to keep moving by circling.

The primary difference between the Chatham and Tsunami is the size, the freeboard and stability. Your kayak wants to roll and turn on a dime, while the Tsunsmi is inclined to go straight and remain upright. Depending on your preference, it’s either a confounded clunker or a stable platform. The hull form is symmetric, which I believe responds best to deliberate imput. When you coax it to the edge, it tries to return to center so you have to hold it there. That could be aggravating unless you come to embrace the notion. Rather than hang the boat on my knee, I use the width of the seat to shift my hips which transfers the weight low to one side, then adjust my upper body to hold the edge. I used to rely on paddle strokes to augment tracking and turn but have since learned that the paddle is best used to keep up speed, otherwise the boat will slow in a turn, or you’ll isolate power to one side while correcting for drift or wind. If I make the 180° turn correctly, the boat willeturn on the same track, otherwise, it’ll follow a parralel track.

With winds out of the south, for example, the waves hit me broads side as I turn the point. To keep water from breaching the exposed side, I shift in the seat and keep the upper torso flexible to ride rather than fight the waves. You kind of first take the hit low then roll and ride the wave as it lifts and passes under the boat. That’s where the ample freeboard helps, so it probably would not work in your Chatham without a spray skirt. If waves get to steep and begin to break above the gunnels, it won’t work. I’ve concluded that I couldn’t handle the wave you face, but i haveca limit and pick the days I paddle.

If I want to make a hairpin turn, I backpaddle on one side. When I’m in tight turns negotiating in marshes, I use the length of the 250 cm paddle to advantage. Like with a Greenland, I hold the tip of the blade and sweep, taking advantage of the 98 inches of leverage, or trail it to make the boat pivot aound the paddle. The boat can turn without stopping as long as the radius is at least about a foot or two longer than the boat.

I almost bought a more nimble boat, but I concluded that I could force this one to my will, so why change horses.

[szihn]

So if I am understanding you correctly, for the most part you don’t try to spin your kayak out of a forward direction and get back on the same track, but instead you make a more open loop back to the same track. Correct?

I can see how that would work.

There is a huge difference between turning around a 20 foot circle and turning inside 20 feet. (Just a bit more then the kayak’s length.)
All kayaks can spin from a stop.
Just paddle forward on one side and back paddle on the other. But a fast sea kayak turning around 180 degrees with a very small loop means you have to place it on it’s side and hold it there while you spin it, and for that you NEED to have a skirt ----- or the cockpit will fill up in about 1-2 seconds.

Said another way: We have 2 circles of 20 feet each, made my floating ropes.
One kayak goes around the outside of the circumference, following the rope on one side of the hull.

The other one turns around inside the 20 foot space ----all within or inside the floating circle.

Am I understanding this correctly?

I do the same kind of strokes with my GL and my Alaskan paddle as you do with the 260 CM Kalliste. By extending them as far as is possible you can really spin a kayak around. One thing I have learned is to not give it cavitation in the water, but give a slow firm push that never breaks free. The paddle is not supposed to move, The hull’s supposed to move. It’s not possible to eliminate all slippage, but by going firmly and a bit slow, the power is transferred to the hull of the kayak and doesn’t overpower the blade in the water, so you gain the maximum amount of hull movement available with that long flat stroke. Then by edging my hull hard over, the resistance of that pivoting movement is cut way down, so I can get a lot more “spin” per stroke.

One thing that is foreign to the dedicated Euro paddler is how much a Greenland paddle is moved around in the hands. I commonly use the whole paddle in a lot of different ways just on my pleasure trips, and the rougher the water gets the more I tend to do it. A supporting sweep 6-7 feet from the hull makes a much larger arc then a supporting sweep 3 feet from the hull. So it has more leverage and it also lasts a long time period. The longer you push the longer time the kayak is being turned.
It’s just easier that way.