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 boats...as 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)…
Charles River Canoe and Kayak
I will probably test paddle one at Charles River C+K. It’s pretty close to work so I can pop over after work. Running out of daylight though.
mixed conditions
So you really don’t need a faster kayak, you need to feel more comfortable in rough conditions. If you’re falling back in rough water in a relatively stable kayak it’s not the boat. Can you roll your kayak? That will make a HUGE difference on maintaining speed in stuff.
This is really demo time. You could go make a blind purchase but it takes a lot of parsing terms to get useful answers.
If you don’t know how to roll you’ll have to learn to take advantage of the hull changes that make for “faster”. In the T165 with your weight you’ll definately need to be able to roll in bouncy stuff. If you want fast look around for a used CD Caribou, the foredeck height would be good for your size. Your weight would keep it fairly deep in the water.
I paddled a Mariner Express in rough stuff with folks in stiff tracking solstices or Caribous, even though their boats were theoretically faster I had no problem keeping up because they weren’t comfortable and slowed down.
caribou
The Caribou is actually a pretty stable boat in big water…and fast.
yep
I went on a camping trip with a friend, me in my Express and him in his Caribou. I was pretty slow when the water was flat compared to him and he slowed down considerably in the waves/wind. I’ve paddled his boat and know it’s faster, if it’s faster it’s faster. He wasn’t as comfortable in the waves so he expended more energy bracing and less going forward. Even though his bow went under more I know his boat could have continued flying past me. Which makes me think the poster needs to improve skills as much as find a more comfortable cockpit ergonomics more than find something “fast”.
Agreed
There is plenty of room for skills improvement. A better fitting boat will help I am sure. Speed is not my primary concern just a potential added benefit.
Thanks to all for your input.
Storm is too big for you, then
If the thigh braces are at your knees and you cannot move the seat forward (or don’t want to), plus your legs are splayed wide, the boat is simply big on you. In my Squall, the thigh braces were positioned adequately for fore-aft, but the tall deck required adding a lot of padding to the existing minicell. My legs were splayed too wide, also. I got used to it, but since paddling narrower and lower boats, I greatly prefer them!
When I say “too big” I am talking strictly about the cockpit area. The length may be fine.
T170
your weight is fine for it. I’d suggest checking out a Chatham 17 also. The big question is whether you want to jump to a maneuverable skegged boat.
Thanks
Thanks for all the input and feedback.