Old Town Castine 145 vs WS Tsunami 145

[Topgun2mo]

I am 66 years old and currently have two Jackson Tupelo 12.5 and one Hurricane skimmer 116 ultimate.

I want a day touring kayak that I can pack with camping gear for creeks and rivers and lakes . I don’t think I would venture out into the Gulf of Mexico.

I am torn between the two aforementioned Kayaks. I’m in love with the cockpit of the Castine 145 but I am unsure of the whole design for tracking and stability. I foresee a lot of my paddling to be done without a router due to shallow condition conditions. I think the tsunami would be a great boat, but I question whether the cockpit would be too small for me to get in and out of. The problem is they are just no boats anywhere around here to try out and I’m gonna have to travel a long ways to buy one.

There seems to be limited information on the tsunami and even less on the Castine. Any at all advice is welcomed.

[Jyak]

No experience with the Castine. There shoukd be a lot of info on the Tsunami. It’s been around since early 2000s. I own the 125, 140, 145 model that is 24.5 inches wide, and the 175 - about 3 years ago, the 140 (24" wide) and 145 (24.5 inches wide) were redesigned to 25.5 inches wide; I’m not sure why, because the 140 model at 24 inches wide is a fast, nimble boat for for paddlers in the 145 lb range. Now they offer a 14 ft and a 14 ft 6 inch boat of the same width, which is too wide for smaller paddlers.

I’m 6 ft tall and 230 lbs. The 145 at 24.5 inches wide is comfortable and roomy. I prefer the fitbof the 175 which is 24 inches wide. I have no idea why WS increased the width of the 140 and 145 unless it was for increased cargo capacity, which is already ample. The advertised 26.5 inch width of the Castine is wider than I would prefer. I consider the 126 Tsunami at 26 inches wide excessive; the width adds cargo capacity, but it isn’t as practical for paddling.

I own ruddered and unruddered version of the 120 Tsunami SP, 125, 140, 145, and 175. The only model that requires a rudder is the 175. The rudder on my second 145 will be removed because the clearance needed to swing the rudder restricts my leg room.
tl
If you’re interested in an further details about the WS Tsunami models, you can contact me by Direct Message. Compare the pictures of both models above, and I think you’ll see that the Tsunami is larger or at least equal to the cockpit of the Castine. The Tsunami line is extremely stable. Superficially, you might find the Castine to have more carco capacity, but the Tsunami might be easier to paddle.

[Topgun2mo]

Thank you for the info. I’ve also been searching for the Internet is pictures of the bottom of the hull of the Castine. I can find plenty of pictures of the tsunami hull, which I love the multi chine design of it. But I can find no pictures of the Castine.

I would like to sit in a tsunami just to see, but I can’t find one anywhere around me to do so

[szihn]

I do not have experience with either one of those 2 kayaks personally. I do have experience with both brands however and I can say I doubt you’d be unhappy with either one.

Both have super comfortable seats, but I will give one gig about Old town’s seat (And it may flow over to the Wilderness Systems but I do not know for sure) The adjustment buckles and sliders do not hold well on the flat webbing they use. I replaced the ones that came on my Old Town loons with metal buckles because they factory buckles didn’t hold the webbing in place. (an addition of about $14 to the cost at the time)

Having now bought 41 kayaks and sold 35 of them, I have learned a few things about design. I’m no expert, but I do have a good handles on some of the basics of design.

The Old Town Castine is a Swede Form hull and the WS Tsunami is a symmetrical hull. Swede forms hulls edge turn very well, but have to be forced over to a greater degree to make as sharp a turn as a symmetrical hull so I expect the Tsunami will be easier to turn then the Castine. At only 14.5 feet long the Swede form hull may not be much of an improvement over the symmetrical hull for speed or tracking, but should have a slight advantage. Where I have seen a gain is straight line speed and tracking with Swede form hulls is on kayaks of 16.5 to near 18 feet in length. So I’d expect a slight advantage for tracking and speed in the Old Town, but I’ll emphasis the works slight.

If a rudder is to be added in the future both kayaks are rudder ready. A rudder when not in use adds a bit of unwanted windage in every case because the flat surface is sitting where wind can catch it, and in the water it only works when moving. The slower you move the less it works, so it can be a mixed blessing. Learning to do dynamic turns with the Tsunami should be pretty easy because of it’s hull shape, but if a rudder is down such turns are hindered, not helped.

In all reality, I bet I am picking nits here because both kayaks as extremely similar.

I do note a difference of 9 pounds in weight, nearly all of which is probably the hull thickness. So if very rough treatment and conditions among rocks and obstetrical were in store, I might lean towards the Old Town. But for the most part light weights are preferred. And the WS kayaks I do have experience with are by no means “light duty”. But I have noted in my Loons and also a few other Old Town kayaks owned by 2 friends of mine, they are built like tanks. For movement out of the water that’s not something most folks like. For fast rock filled water and for drags over hard ground, or rough landings and launches it can be an advantage. A 9 pound increase in weight, with both kayaks of the same length and width is a lot. So if you know you are going to be going over a lot of rocks and "bad things’ the Old town is likely to be the more resilient of the two. But if you are not going out “looking for trouble” I’d lean toward the WS kayak.

All of the forgoing is a bit speculative for me as I have NO experience with either of those 2 specifically, but some of what I wrote may give you a few more things to look over and think about before you make a decision.

Happy paddling

[Jyak]

Hull profile is a personal preference based on the type of stability and control you prefer. My preference is the WS multi-chine design for the incredible stability. The approach is featured on their kayak models including the Pungo and Tsunami. I’ve paddled the 120 x 29 inch and newer 125 x 29.5 Pungo, the 140 x 28 Pungo, and own the 120 x 21 inch Tsunami SP for my grandaughter, the 125 x 26 Tsunami two 140 x 24 inch Tsunamis for my sister and another grandaughter, two 145 x 24.5 inch wide Tsunamis with and without rudder, and the 175 x 24 inch wide Tsunami. The entire line, whether 29.5 inches through 24 inches enjoys the same degree of stability, regardless of width.

Although the hull shape favors stability, it does make it harder to hold an edge, because it wants to return to center, yet I have no problem keeping the 145 Tsunami tracking straight through edging alone. On the other hand, the 175 Tsunami can be a real challenge in wind speeds above 8 mph, unless you deploy the rudder.

I noticed that handling can be strongly influenced by weight - I paddled both the 145 and 175 when I weighed 255 lbs and after dropping 25 lbs. While my bodyweight overloaded the 145 by a few pounds, the 175 with a max capacity of 400 lbs gave me room for additional load. In my lower body weight range, the 145 is more manageable, but the 175 is less manageable. That makes me wonder if the 175 design had been tweeked to perform better with a cargo, which makes me wonder if adjusting cargo ballast could improve handling. Be careful accepting endorsements about boats unless you share features and expectations as the paddler offering the recommendation.

The Old Town kayaks I examined typically have rounded chines, and I just preferred the WS multi-chine. Here is a description of the Castine 145 hull:

You might get a hint of how the Castine handles by test paddling a similar Old Towne model, but padfling the actual kayak the way you plan to load it is critical. Although you can get accustomed to any boat, the nuances make for a personal connection. I like the roomy cockpit of the Tsunami, but too much room could make for an uncomfortable ride. The difference between the Tsunami 140 x 24" wide x 15" deck, and the 145 x 24.5" x 16" deck model is minor. However, my 145 lb sister didn’t like anything about the fit of my 145 Tsunami. She preferred the 140 x 28" Pungo, until I took her to test a 140 x 24" Tsunami. She switched to the narrower Tsunami and never looked back. Unless the cargo capacity of the Castine is a deciding factor, you may want to test it to decide whether you are comfortable with the width.

[Jyak]

Agree with @szihn assesment, adding some personal comments. While swede form has minor speed advantages, that advantage would be mitigated to some degree by the extra one inch width. Although I have no experience packing a kayak with cargo, it seems that the symmetric hull design would be easier to balance, considering that buoyancy is more equally dustributed in front of and behind the cockpit.

My experience in the 145 model is based on the earlier 24.5 inch wide version. Considering the already solid stability of the WS hull, I would prefer a 23 to 23.5 inch wide version rather than the increased width of 25.5 inches. That might be splitting hairs, but the 24 inch wide hull is more than adequate in the 175. I’d be confident with a narrower version because of how the Tsunami SP handles. I posted this picture of my grandaughter in her Tsunsmi SP (12’ x 21" x 13" deck), because it’s worth a thousand words:

For a 13 yr old novice to track straight without deploying the rudder in those conditions, attests to the design. Even without a spray skirt and a low deck, the boat remained relatively dry. It also debunks the notion that stable kayaks become tippy in heavy conditions. Those conditions, although far from extreme are typical for the area, could prove to be trying for a young and inexperienced kayaker paddling a lesser design (wind direction, warm water, being in a group, and proximity to the shore was favorable if she overturned).

Based on my personal experience, none of the paddlers using the Tsunamis mentioned above have ever deployed the rudder on any of the models, except for my reliance on a rudder in the 175. I don’t have much need to make radical turns, so the Tsunamis perform adequately, and straight tracking has never been an issue.

I’m no fan of rudders unless necessary for tracking. When you find yourself 10 to 15 miles from landing, simplicity is best in a boat. The primary feature I value is inherent stability and tracking without the need of tracking aids. IF you have the capacity to learn a technique, it’s far better to develop the skill than rely on a mechanical feature that could fail. The lack of boat handling skill can become dramatic when cables snap or channels get packed with debris. On one solo trip, my rudder bolt fell out while the rudder was deployed. Not only was the rudder unavailable to assist with tracking, it contributed to the problem because I couldn’t raise it. Unless there is the need for a playful boat, my preference is for a boat that can be handled within my the level on my technical skill.

The seat strap buckles on the Tsunami also suffer from poor holding power. I remedied that temporary by using a cheap stainless steel surgical clamp that I picked up at a flea market. Granger has them for under $5. That worked well enough that I haven’t considered other options.

The added weight is probably from the additional width of the Old Towne (I suspect that WS added 1.5" to the 140 and 1" to the 145 width on their recent models without adding to the max capacity or overall weigh on the spec sheets; or the changes were smaller than advertised. The WS kayaks are adequately resilient for rough service.

[szihn]

My Mistake. Somehow I thought I read that both were 25.5" wind but looking a 2nd time I see the Castine is 1" wider then the Tsunami.

And so I’d make the same assumption as you John, that the swede form of the Castine is not going to gain anything over the Tsunami because o0f the extra width. Of course there are wild guesses. I base my guess on knowledge accumulated over the past years in buying, trying and selling a lot of kayaks, but it’s still a guess at best.

MY Necky Chatham17 is in fact 17’ 3.5" and it weighs 62 pounds. So at over 17 feet it’s the same weight at the 14.5 foot Castine. It is thinner to be sure at 21.5"

My Perception Sea Lion Shadow is 64 pounds at 16.5’ long but with a 24" beam.

So a 14.5" wide day-touring kayak seems heavier then the average to me, but I have known for 5-6 years that Old Town has a tendency to build them VERY strong. Maybe a bit overkill in some cases. Not that there is anything fundamentally wrong with that, but many folks find 60+ pound kayaks to be heavier then they like.

The Swede form actually is helpful when loaded heavy because with the widest part behind the seat it carries a bit more cargo and places it closer to the center of balance, so when trimmed correctly the Swede form seems to be wonderful for heavy loads. My Rebel Jara is Swede form and when loaded for a 10 day trip it was simply wonderful. The Jara is 17’ 4" long and is only 20.5" wide and so it’s quite fast. But to make turns that would keep up with the Chatham17 I need to place it on an edge about 10 degrees steeper then I do the Chatham. If I place the Jara on edge so the water is about 3" over my cockpit combing (over the side of my spray skirt) I can make a 90 degree turn in 1 paddle stroke, but in the Chatham I have to only get close to the surface with my combing and skirt, and the Chatham17 is symmetrical in it’s hull form. That’s one of a few examples I have learned from.

In my opinion from my somewhat limited exposure to various forms of hull designs, the Swede is best suited for long distance traveling and moderate to heavy loads. A swede form hull in a 14’5 foot kayak is something I would not thought of as filling a void in the mission statement of a 14.5 foot kayak, but I must concede that the folks at Old Town know a lot more about hull design then I do. Maybe they have an overview I lack.
Odd, but my 10.5 foot long Old Town Loons are also Swede formed ---- despite the fact they are clearly not made as long distance touring kayaks.

So it’s clear I have more to learn.

[Jyak]

Considering the weigh, my only impression is that the WS is adequately strong for most situations. The Old Towne bulk could be a factor if greater strength is considered essential.

As noted, I have never loaded a kayak with gear. Your impressions about the versatility of the swede form is noteworthy. I wouldn’t have anticipated any benefit, so that’s good to know. Likewise, as I mentioned, turning is less of a desired trait to me than tracking, which is an attribute of the Tsunami. My final thought is that the 145 is my preferred boat, but the 175 is the one I paddle because it’s faster and better able to handle conditions I find to be more prevalent on the bay. I believe either boat fits the requirements. It mostly depends on the size and weight of the paddler and the space requirement for cargo.

[Topgun2mo]

Guys, thank you so much for all the info. I just drove an hour and 15 minutes one wayto New Orleans just to sit in the tsunami and see how I could get in and out of the boat. I’m 66 and not really that flexible. I did get in and out without assistance, but I was scraping my knee on the front of the cockpit I just felt that it was too tight

Have any of y’all paddled an Equinox?? A test paddle one last year and I felt it was tippy. I would be curious to your experience with that to compare tipping us of the boats we’re talking about now.

I pretty much made up my mind that it’s gonna be the Castine because of the extra 3 inches in cockpit length. That will make it much easier a couple of things I don’t like about the Castine is it does not come with a paddle park and it has no track for mounting accessories like a GoPro or camera so I’m either left with an adhesive camera mount or drilling holes in the boat. But I’ll have to grill anyway for a paddle park.

One other thing concerning the weight. The current Castine 145 comes from the factory with the rudder system, so that is included in the weight which adds to the total. The other thing that adds to the weight besides the width is the Castine It’s not only 1 inch wider but it’s also 1 inch deeper than the tsunami.

Just to let y’all know I am 5’11” and 185 pounds. My legs are short I only have a 30 inch inseam, but I still had difficulty getting into the tsunami. Just think I prefer a more open cockpit because I will not be going in large bodies of water in rough conditions.

Thanks again I really like all this information y’all have given here

[szihn]

Well I just learned something new. The INCLUDED rudder on the Castine would to explain the extra weight to some extent anyway. As jyak said, learn to use the kayak without the rudder so you can if you need to.

A good paddler who wants to use a rudder now and then has a great advantage over a paddler who have only depended on a rudder and then finds they need to paddle without one. Learn in easy conditions and as your skills increase you’ll find you need the rudder a lot less. If ever you find yourself needing it in addition to your paddle skills it’s then worth it’s weight in gold.

And yes the cockpits of the Old Towns are very easy to enter and exit.

I am pretty sure if you got the Old Town you’d be happy with it.

[Topgun2mo]

Actually, I would prefer if it did not have the rudder. It would make the Kayak easier to handle as I grabbed the stern of the boat to push it on top of my J racks on top of my car. But I’m not gonna take it off and probably will not use it. I would really prefer to have a skeg but the trade off there is loss of a little bit of rear storage space.

[szihn]

They are easy to remove. Some easier then others but none I have worked on have been really hard.

[Jyak]

No experience with the Equinox. As you use a boat, you get the handbif getting in and out of the boat. The Old Towne will give you plenty of of cargo capacity. The higher deck gives you some more knee room, and helps part waves. Give it a test paddle and swipe your card. Have fun.

[Jyak]

There are many different opinions about skegs and rudders, but a simple way of looking at them is they help a boat track. Kayaks designed for touring are typically longer with a straighter keel line. While one designed to turn be agile in surf will have rocker to make it easier to pivot. However, the boat with a high degree of rocker will probably be difficult to track in a straight line. An adjustable skeg remedies that by elongating the track and changing the lateral resistance. It also helps the boat to resist wind cocking. A rudder accomplishes the same thing but it’s move active vs. the passive resistance provided by an adjustable skeg (tracking can be trimmed to offer mire or less drop to balance resistance).

New kayakers often misunderstand the purpose of a skeg or rudder. While the skeg can be viewed as a fixed tab to balance the kayak’s tracking, the rudder can be used to turn a kayak, but it should really be view as an adjustable tab to enhance directional control for straight tracking. As Steve pointed out, it isn’t effective for turning, because the keel essentially drags through the turn and slows the boat. The more efficient way to turn is to lean the boat “on edge” to increase the curve of the hull on the low side, while the side that comes out of the water is straighter. Water pressing on the lower curved side helps the kayak turn more efficiently.

While all kayaks could benefit from either a skeg or a rudder, in reality, all kayaks do not need either, while some may be uncontrollable without one or the other. I face that dilemma with five differnt versions of the same kayak. Three of the models have rudders that have never been deployed, while the 17’ 6" kayak is impractical without the rudder in winds over 8 mph.

So why not add one, just in case. Well, the rudder unit costs $300, so that’s $900 worth of rudders that add weight; complicates handling, transportation, and storage; I position the rudder off the back of my kayak rack, because it will drag on the roof if over the cab, will leave nast gouges in the vehicle’s sheet metal compared to the plastic hull if the boat slips, and its more susceptible to damage if it falls from height; when I load the kayak, the rudder pivots on the ground as I put the bow on the rack, which risks bending the rudder unit. Then there’s the ever present possibility of clips falling off, forgetting to release the retaining bungee, then the pegs move, unless you buy replacement footpegs (more monet to invest if they aren’t used. I’ve been out and realized there waa sand in the tracks which made the rudder less responsive.

Skegs get jammed with gravel. The skeg well can leak, and it takes up room in the rear compartment. If you like mechanical gadgets or the boat tracks better with either device, select it as an option. Otherwise, yest the boat and decide whether you need it. Don’t just buy either because you think a kayak needs one. When raised and on the deck in a stowed position, it’s just a weather vane.

I enjoy the 145 Tsunami because tracking is so much easier once you get the hang of edging. You become more attuned to the boat. I now just paddle to propel the kayak and lean to steer it. You’ll find that speed is the best aid to turning, rather than struggling with paddle strokes. As with turning a bicycle, shifting your weight is more effective in turning that moving your handlebars; the handlebars don’t steer the bike, but rather keep you from over or under steering as you lean. The 145 Tsunami doesn’t need a rudder. I’m not sure about the Castine.