My Pintail's foredeck measures at 12" max depth - EXACTLY the same as my Q700 (both of which I can touch as I type this). Both are 1/2" higher at front of coaming.
Even more shocking heresy: The top edge of the rear coaming on the Pintail is only 1 1/8" lower, as the Q700's is more recessed!
If you meant freeboard - that depends on load, so you'd have no way to know that. It probably does catch a little more wind than SOME Brit designs, but decks are smooth, hatches flush, and it's minor issue with skeg or rudder. Even crabbing is less of a factor when you're making better speed and not stuck out in it so long.
Main handling difference with a Q700 over finer ended Brit designs I've tried and watched is it doesn't wallow or get slowed as much in troughs and doesn't get spun around as much by smaller waves (more end volume/LWL). Keeps it's speed easier as a result. Flip side being it can be a bit less nimble at sit 'n spin type play - as should be expected with more LWL - and that's not what it's made for. Primary AND secondary probably as good as you'll find at 21" in any hull.
SK Specs from Caribou test are 12 1/8 front coaming height, 9 rear coaming height, 4.4 inch draft and 14’ 10" waterline length with 200 lb paddler.
Well, whatever, it looks pretty slim sitting on my boat trailer but I know that’s partly an optical illusion from the hard-chined hull shape.
I’ll be keeping it a few years, yes. After all this discussion I’m still pretty sure I’m not going to get any further up the river in a longer boat, myself.
Heights etc… Sea Kayaker measured the Aquanaut fore height at 11.5" and aft at 7.5"
The QCC site states the 700 fore height at 12.5" and aft at 10"
In my preference and experience, I would prefer even lower decks than the Aquanaut. My Elaho is 10.5" front of coaming and 7" aft. I can easily lay out flat on the aft deck of my Elaho.
As far as handling, the hull profile does make a difference.
I’ve read an amount of what Hutchinson has written and an amount of what has been written about Frank Goodman’s designs and they do have functional reasons for the hull sections of the boats they design.
And yes I have read Winters and regularly spend time on the QCC site.
I am not saying anything negative about your QCC700. I am simply stating that different sea kayaks handle challanging seas differently. You prefer the way your 700 handles dimensional and textured water. Many others prefer the way some other design handles such.
Some sea kayaks are specifically designed to handle very challanging seas. Those who take on the most challanging conditions for paddling sea kayaks choose boats that will get them safely through those conditions.
Differences of measure and opinion QCC’s on-site measures are accurate (except length) but are to highest point on coaming, not deck heights as relates to windage (and match exactly what I said).
Actually, I like both types of handling. Both inspire confidence in otherwise well thought out hulls. I’m not debating the Brit boats are not good, and agree SOME (not all) are likely superior if you’re stuck in a nasty place (but maybe better to not be stuck there! L). I’m a pretty big fan of NDK Explorer in particular, but would not trade.
My opinions regarding QCC/Brit are based on my direct (though not extensive) impression of both types.
My continued beef here as it relates to Brit boat owners is their opinions on Q700 are all to often based on Brit experience only - and guesses and misinterpretations of the Q700. Few have spent any time in both, not even flat water short tests - yet they feel compelled to speak with authority on the Q700’s limits.
Of those that own both a Brit in the league of Explorer, Aquanaut, Quest, or Legend and a Q700 (2-3 here now at least), their Q700s gets excellent reviews and see more water time. One has sold their Explorer due to lack of use, one keeps for rough day play, don’t know about others. It may not be the rough water match of the Explorer, but it is not a flatwater boat and is at no serious handicap offshore.
“Those who take on the most challenging conditions for paddling sea kayaks choose boats that will get them safely through those conditions.”
Yes, of course, but most often that’s what they already paddle and are comfortable in. That also tends to mean something that has been around long enough to gain such experience to tackle those conditions. Such paddlers are already longtime fans of certain gear and are unlikely to consider anything much different. An expedition pedigree is impressive - but not a fair measure to apply to newer designs.
Basically, I’m just sick of the high volume flat water assumptions. These are not radically different enough craft to warrant such polarized views - particularly when not backed up with first hand knowledge.
BTW - I think optimum deck height for me should be about same as what you said. 10.5-11" front, 6-7" rear. I’ll find out if I ever get a chance to build.
Lower/Flatter Rear Decks Interesting discussion about rear deck height on the Q vs. some of the lower profile Brit boats. Curious as to why the deck height is the way it is; based on cargo volume? Buoyancy? Personally, this (and the rudder housing issue), are my two only criticisms of this boat, that cannot be fairly easily remedied. What I miss about my Explorer is the ‘in your face’ ease with which it dealt with challenging conditions and heavy winds. The 700 is not bad at all, carries speed extremely well, but as noted, that extra WL does get pushed around a bit, and it’s a little less nimble (ie* ‘playful/lively’). I also miss the ease with which it rolled. You could give it a half a-- attempt and pop right up. Laybacks were a dream. A lower deck would make the Q a whole lot better in this regard, as it’s pretty predictable going over and coming back up-just requires some extra hip snap to finish off. Why don’t Phil and crew ‘tweak’ the deck height slightly, and move the rear coaming lip back a bit more to facilitate this? They’ve moved the cockpit twice. Wondering if too, with a lower rear deck height, the rear would be awash more frequently. One friend who has the first series Futura II complained about this very thing in breaking waves, particularly with a heavier paddler. Since the Q was designed displacement wise to accomodate a substantial combined paddler/cargo weight (Was it 2,000 lbs.? ), it’s hard to picture this being an issue. Back to my wish list…
Mike, that 'bou is a great boat; good at almost everything-those hard chines really hook an edged turn. Prototypical all arounder. I’d definitely hang onto it for a bit and enjoy it, and the offer also stands for a test paddle in the Q-Tip come Spring.
I disagree that 8 1/2 hours is a long time to cover 30 miles on the coast of Maine with much of the paddling in open ocean. I stopped for about an hour on the trip, so 30 / 7.5 = 4.0 knots. I also encountered some large ocean swells and confused seas on the west and south sides of the island. My kayak handled these conditions in stride.
If I could paddle another kayak half a knot faster over the course of the entire trip, it would only save me 50 minutes. That’s assuming another kayak could handle those conditions effectively and go half a knot faster, and I could power it half a knot faster. Flatwater speed does not necessarily equal rough water speed.
Only speaking in general on speed Not any specific trip. That’s why I asked about stops, etc. Certainly wasn’t talking down the completion of a trip that long, in waters I don’t know, and would be hard pressed to do myself. Sorry if you read otherwise.
In my search for a new day boat, I looking for something reasonably fast, about 16’ long and 21-22" wide with fore deck of less than 12" and rear of 7.5" or less.
The Epic Touring Cruiser is on my short list.
I would also like skeg and day hatch… so the Kajak-Sport Viking Expedition is also on my short list.
Got specs? I don’t think particularly low when I think of Epic or KajakSport, so I’m curious about this statement. Maybe the Brit bias/assumptions about this subject have rubbed off a bit on me?
Neither lists numbers, so I don’t want to assume. Anyone have specs?
The KajakSport I tried was the larger Viv (quite nice - bit of a heavy cruiser). Don’t recall it being low front or rear, but it did have a nicely rounded over coaming rim (Unlike my harder edged QCC). Have no recollection of the Epic, but I would remember if a layback was easy.
I think more makers should list these numbers (and specify if max depth at coaming or keel to deck only).
Thanks for that response. It’s a compelling argument, speed/efficiency vs. stability. We would all like to be able to go faster for the amount of time and energy spent, but also don’t want to sacrifice that rough water stability. Since every boat is a compromise of these and other elements, I guess the conditions we paddle in and our skill level help determine how we best strike that balance.
Epic 16 I was checking out the Epic 16 at my local kayak shop last weekend. It’s an extremely nice boat. I really like the carbon kevlar lay-up and it felt very sturdy. The Smart Track Rudder is also a nice feature. The only thing that felt a little flimsy was the cockpit coaming and thigh braces (handle with care).
Epic & Kajak-Sport specs from SK Epic front height 11.5", aft 6.6"
If I want a fast day boat, the Epic is a strong candidate.
Kajak-Sport fore 11.75", aft 8.5"
The aft deck on the Kajak-Sport is higher than I would like, but the boat is a nice boat with long wateline and decent speed according to Sea Kayaker’s review and specs.
), it’s hard to picture this being an issue. Back to my wish list…