Agreed
I paddled an Avocet while at 205 and while I fit fine, the boat handles much differently (and better IMO) now that I’m 165-170.
When I demoed boats one of my
requirements was that the boat would glide when you stopped paddling - in a straight line and not be what I called “skeg dependent” to go straight. The Tempest did this, the Chatham did not-so as a previous poster said-best thing is to paddle both boats and make your own decision on what each feels like to you.
ML
nice boats
you will be pleased with either.
i would stick with a back band and as time goes on your back will likely strengthen and the lumbar issues will vanish. a good friend of mine had chronic lower back pain when he took up paddling that vanished. he is a serious paddler.
he does not use any back support at all.
the seat back slows down a re entry and can retard a lay back roll. ( the common roll for sea kayakers in loaded boats.
both these boats compare to the capella. as you become a more accomplished paddler you will find the tempest and the chatham roll easily and turn very nicely. they are not fast boats but good for tearing up the water, rock hopping or guiding. they turn quickly and are tough.
f
chatham
– Last Updated: Oct-18-08 1:32 PM EST –
I'm 5'10" 185lbs also, I had no issue with volume, I also found that I had no issues setting the pace during 25+ miles paddles over multiple weeks with groups of fiberglass boats. I think it's a nice ride...
misc.
– Last Updated: Oct-19-08 12:16 PM EST –
the Chatham17 will feel more stable,it has a larger "footprint" on the water, it'll feel more secure surfing down wave and pound a bit more going into waves. While it has a low freeboard it's a bigger kayak than the 165, apples and oranges, personal preference territory
thanks
– Last Updated: Oct-19-08 4:13 AM EST –
Thanks for all the advise everybody. Logically I know that I shouldn't limit my choices to just these two boats without paddling them, but my economic reality says otherwise. From my frantic online research and the comments today, it sounds like either one will be a nice ride.
I saw the Tempest today and it was very nice. I didn't like the seat as much as I hoped and the hatches were WS ones, so probably leaky. It's a demo boat and a little scratched up, but fine looking otherwise. The dealer showed me a poly Valley Aquanaut and explained it's similar design and far superior materials and construction. It's got that icky lime yellow and used too, but barely a scratch on it and only $150 more than the tempest. Very tempting, but already past my budget.
I'm gonna meet up with a guy tomorrow to see the Chatham 17. Hopefully it's not too tight and hopefully the flat hull is still as fast as the tempest. Unfortunately it's heavier, but my Shadow weighs the same, so I should be used to it. It's too bad that thing doesn't perform the way I wanted it too, it's a really nice looking boat. http://photos1.meetupstatic.com/photos/member/2/4/f/b/highres_4509467.jpeg Thanks again for all the advise. I'll post an update shortly.
if possible
you’ll get the best test in high winds/waves. You’ll sink the 165 down well to resist wind effects and your size will make tossing it around easier. The Chatham17 will be roomier and less susceptible to weathercocking right off, it’s down wave performance won’t be evident unless you’ve got a 1’ wave to go down. My $.02 is the Chatham17 because the hatches will be better(if you got ones that are installed correctly, easily fixed if not) and it’s down wave performance is confidence inspiring,much, much better than the Shadow. The 165 will feel tippier going down waves than the 17.
You won’t be gaining anything regarding speed/efficiency switching from the Shadow, in fact the Chatham17 is probably a smidge more effort to maintain a cruising speed.
Really?
The Chatham won’t be any faster than the shadow? I’m sure it won’t weathercock and it can turn when edged - my biggest issues with the shadow… Do you think the T-165 would be better at straight line cruising while being just as maneuverable? The surfing qualities of the Chatham sounds really great, but I don’t know how much of that I’ll need. Thanks.
tempest 165
I agreed that the tempest 165 is small and tight …I have a 170 and it fits like a glvoe…I am 5"10 so can’t imagine you can get in the 165 unless you have small feet. and slim hips.
speed revisited
Why do you think there would be a difference?
If you really care that much about speed, get a kayak with a rudder so you don’t waste any energy on corrective strokes. All Olympic sprint kayaks use rudders for a reason.
I don’t use a rudder or skeg on my boat and it’s only 14 feet - I never have problems keeping up.
I gotta say something here
the issue with the W/S hatches? I have owned a T-170 for 5 years now—the first two years the hatches leaked particularly after rolling practice—then I disovered the secret of pounding the perimeter of the hatches with the palm of my hand—I haven’t had a problem since—Not to insult anybody’s inteligence but if you take care to make sure the perimeters are properly seated you won’t have a problem—rather you want to buy a Chatam or a W/S is up to you but don’t let this nonsence about W/S hatches stop you from getting the 165 if you like it.
Hatches & speed
The folks who do not have leaky hatches sometimes really think those who have leaky hatches are dumb or something worse. My front one leaks just because it simply can’t seal the hatch opening - it is loose, simple as that. The rear two are water tight - not a drop. The problem is the plastic hatch rim is a smidgen smaller relative to the hatch cover plus a bit lower whan it needs to be, so no amount of pounding helps - the bottom lip of the cover lays flat on the deck, the top hovers above the covered edge of the rim inside just enough to let water in.
Either the hatch cover is bigger or the rim is smaller but they don’t match as good as the two rear ones…
'nuf said on this.
As for speed, I paddled my Tempest 170 alongside a pair of Chathams and I seem to had easier time than them. But I do not remember if they were 16 or 17… Neither is a speed machine though - the Tempest creates quite a wave behind it at rather slow speeds. Seems adequate for cruising along (and more than adequate in play in conditions) but not if you are in a hurry -
agreed
if you like how it paddles that’s what matters. Just out of curiosity if you do rescues that involve climbing on the aft deck will the hatch maintain it’s seal?
Well that depends…
Witnessed a hatch implosion of the rear hatch cover on an RM Tempest during a rescue at Downeast Symposium. Luckily we were fairly close to end of the day and landing so there was no need to be real picky about getting the rear bulkhead emptied. I think it was one of the older WS hatch covers.
Granted that’s the first I’ve ever seen, and the only one that weekend with a lot of those boats on the water. But it can happen.
Chatham 17 vs Tempest 165
The first time I tried a paddle float rescue in my T17 in the pool the hatch cover came off when I was up on the back deck. I carry a spare paddle on the rear deck to help ensure the rear hatch stays on.
Chatham 16 versus 17
Keep in mind, there is a pretty big difference between the Chatham 16, 17 and 18 - it’s not just length. It’s width, amount of rocker and both effect how the boat handles.
instructors workshop
– Last Updated: Oct-20-08 1:45 PM EST –
we were part of a staged FUBAR mass rescue situation where a friend had to paddle 100yds to shore(sheltered water but high wind and cold water)with a rescued person laying on the back deck. It was hysterical because he intentionally peeled up the edge of the oval VCP hatch letting it fill part way with water with only a few dry bags keeping the back afloat.
Kinda drove home the idea that a hatch has to withstand a person laying on it, not just maintain a seal for rolling as the last thing you want is compromised flotation when it's most needed.
both are good boats
Two of my usual paddling partners own Chatham 17s, and I occassionally paddle with a guy with a Tempest 165. I never detected any discernible speed difference between the two. Between these two boats, I suspect the vast majority of any speed difference would be due to the human engine rather than boat design. In fact, my experience is that’s true with respect to most any true sea kayak. Keep in mind that speed is not just a function of how fast you can paddle, but how long you can keep it up.
both are good
Thanks, sounds like either will work and it will come down to comfort and maybe price for me. I still haven’t tried the Chatham but I did just come across a new Tempest 170 for a $100 bucks more and a slightly used RM Valley Aquanaut for $150 more and with much nicer construction. This is getting to be more difficult to decide!
A very very good point
– Last Updated: Oct-20-08 6:32 PM EST –
@ speed revisited - Your logic makes a lot of sense. This whole future boat purchase is to upgrade my cheap old but fairly fast and reliable Perception Shadow because it weathercocks and doesn't turn when edged. It has a rudder (training wheels) and really needs it constantly. Perhaps that slight drag isn't worth upgrading to a skegged modern boat that you still have to use corrective strokes. Then again, I won't learn to paddle better and I need to be a good consumer and help the economy...