CD Storm vs Tempest 170

I currently own a CD Storm and have been generally happy with it for 2 seasons. I have paddled it from Maine to Cape Cod. It has handled conditions nicely.

I am 5’9" 220lbs. I have an opportunity to pick up a Tempest 170 RM for a good price. I will have to sell the Storm to pay for it so both is not an option.

My question is for those who have paddled both. What would I gain from moving to the Tempest 170 RM from the storm? I would like to add some speed and maybe less windage. What else would I get?

Thanks in advance.

different deck rigging, seat, cockpit, dayhatch, narrower…

the list goes on.

did you get to paddle the T?

if it speaks to ya…


Not paddled yet
I did sit in one a few weeks ago. It fit nice. The storm is feeling too roomy. I hope to get one on the water before winter.

Will it be noticeably faster?

Storm vs Tempest
I have paddled both and IMO the Tempest is like a sports car compared to a SUV. The Tempest is a more advanced boat and performs better than the Storm, especially in rough water. It is much easier to roll and has the most comfortable seat I have used of any kayak I have paddled. The fit is more snug than the Storm so you should really try before you buy.

Best of luck.

Why not the 165?
Speed differences in all of em are slight, especially over long distances, and the 165 is a fun boat, more playful, enough room, and you’d fit fine I bet.

I’ve paddled the Squall and the T165. One big difference was the apparent height of the foredeck – the Squall felt like I had a barrel in my lap by comparison. The lower deck allows a more comfortable stroke.

I’ll try it
if I can get into it.

Squall vs. Tempest 165
You WILL have much less windage going to the T-170 for sure.

I tried both the Squall and T-165, the smaller cousin of the pair you’re comparing. The difference is clear. The foredeck on the Squall is soooo high I bang my knuckles on it contactly! I can easily roll the 165. For the Squall, getting into a proper setup position would be a challenge.

On the other hand, you’re trading rudder for skeg. Some love it, others hate it. It’s very personal.

hey-where are you located???

i had a t165 (plastic)…and sold it and got right into this t170…love it…i am 5’10" 215# and i fit both boats fine…went with the 170 for a little more space…would love to have a 165 to play with tho…

speed, maybe less windage

– Last Updated: Oct-25-06 4:38 PM EST –

The jump to a maneuverable skegged kayak like the T170 from a ruddered Storm will be more significant than any speed difference, I wonder how much more efficient or "fast" the 170 is to justify the switch.
Your handling skills will improve but you may not necessarily be seeking that.
For less windage get a lower volume hull like the T-165, you'll probably feel like you've still got significant windage in a t170 because it's more maneuverable than the Storm. A Chatham 17 is a good choice for a wind resistant kayak but if you really want a significant speed difference it'll take a significantly lighter or skinnier hull which none of these plastic boats are.
Regarding speed, do you want to put out the same effort and go a little faster, go the same speed with less effort or actually go faster and put out significantly more effort to do so?
The switch from a ruddered to skegged boat would be the biggest difference.

15 miles south of Boston
I paddle mostly Boston Harbor out of Hingham. Also hit the Cape.

Storm/Squall vs. T170/T165

– Last Updated: Oct-25-06 6:15 PM EST –

My husband and I got a Storm and a Squall for our first sea kayaks. He still uses his Storm; I sold the Squall after I bought the T165. Paddled the Squall for three full years.

I doubt you will notice much of a speed gain in going to the T170. What you will gain, though, is more predictable, consistent, easy-to-manage handling. I thought the Squall had some strange quirks. Namely, it tracked so strongly *in calm water* that it took a lot of edging and a strong sweep to get it to turn. Yet in rough water, it yawed, hobbyhorsed, tilted, and basically did everything BUT go straight. It had plenty of stability so I almost never felt any threat of capsizing; it just became a real beast to maintain forward progress. The worst thing was how it would suddenly broach without warning. I got used to it, obviously. Learned to roll in it.

But it wasn't till I got the T165 that I found out I didn't have to fight a kayak in rough conditions. On a camping trip on Yellowstone Lake, a thunderstorm blew in and the wind/water quickly turned rough. On previous trips with those conditions, both my husband and I would be working hard to keep our Storm/Squall going straight, with OR without rudder deployed. This time, I *enjoyed* the waves--including beam waves part of the way--as he got farther and farther behind.

I always thought the deck of the Squall was too tall for its being a "smaller paddler's" kayak. That's both the front and rear decks. Though the T165 is not a low-volume kayak, I noticed the better fit immediately. I have no doubt there's a similar fit improvement going from a Storm to a T170. Just don't do it for speed alone; the Storm and Squall are fairly fast long as the water's not too bouncy.

stop by the Hingham EMS
and tell them that you wish to demo a t170…or is that where you are thinking of getting it?

the trade off
between a hull that tracks stiffly and one that’s maneuverable the maneuverable one is more fun in bouncy water.

Never quite understood the reasoning behind a stiff tracking hull with a rudder. Once you put the rudder on it pretty much tracks as much as you’d want. If it’s got some maneuverabilty it’ll feel more comfortable in waves even with a rudder.

I’ve heard one reason
Put all effort into paddling forward straight and let the rudder do all the steering when needed. I suppose it makes sense for a limited-use kayak (go-fast exercise paddling), but not for a touring kayak. Which is what the Storm and Squall are.

The Merganser works well for exercise paddling, and it does not have either skeg or rudder.

the problem
is that the boats with the hollow ends and stiff tracking introduce funny torquing motions in waves. I’d rather have straight tracking from little rocker and fuller convex ends with a rudder than sharp hollow ends that grab the water. Boats as simple as the QCC kayaks have good tracking but it doesn’t feel like there’s a skeg on the front and back like the Squamish types.

You nailed it
In calm conditions, the Storm is fast enough. It is in mixed conditions that I tend to fall behind and really work to keep it moving. I also need better boat contact. My legs are splayed too much and the thigh braces are just above my knees.

REI actually
I work part time at the REI in Hingham.

I also had a Squall

– Last Updated: Oct-26-06 10:11 AM EST –

Kudos to the designers at CD for how well this boat keeps the paddler upright in conditions - the Solstice design is now old but deserves credit for what a breakthru it was when it came out and resulted in the first two really seaworthy plastic kayaks available in NA.

But it is an old design - the higher rear deck than something like the Tempest is a pain for paddle-float re-entry, it is technically pickier about the paddler getting the roll just right than the newer lower volume boats, and the attitude about handling waves is different.

Also, over time I learned to hate the rudder. Not only was it usually vestigial on the Squall since she was such a tracker anyway (more so than the Storm according to what I've been told), the metal cables and parts were the cause of more than one embarassing entaglement or injury to other paddlers.

I haven't had a chance to get into a Tempest yet - seems that every time I am ready to either a Tstorm comes up or the boat is being pulled in from a previous demo paddler needing a rescue - but it is a newer design that will is likely to suit current paddling trends better than the Storm/Squall.

oooo…that does not mean that you
shouldn’t go there…(in my mind even more of a reason to try one out there)…