hard tracking
Yes, that’s true, the Bahiya is harder tracking that the Foster boats, especially the Shadow. I don’t have a lot of experience with Foster boats though I have paddled a Silhouette a bit and have tried them all except the Rumor at various festivals. My experience is that the Bahiya, like the Foster boats, requires more attention because it likes to lay over a bit. Seems to me that folks who like Nigel’s craft would like the Bahiya, but thems that don’t wouldn’t.
Cetus – from someone who’s paddled it!
There seem to be some strong opinions registered here, which is surprising considering none of them comes from someone who’s actually paddled the Cetus!
I did get an opportunity to test paddle the Cetus over the course of several days while participating in a BCU 5-Star Training course at Sea Kayak Georgia in late October. This gave me an opportunity to see how the boat handled in surf, swells, and big wind (Force 4 to 5). My reaction…P&H has designed a rock solid boat with the Cetus.
Here a are a few of my thoughts based on my experience:
- Stability. The Cetus has a very solid feel in the water. I normally paddle an Explorer and found the Cetus comparable. In short, the boat responded to my input without doing anything unpredictable, even when screaming down the face of a wave.
- Edging. The Cetus responded very well to edged turns, turning the boat 180 on a bow rudder was not a problem.
- Weather-cocking. Even with a beam wind blowing 20-25 knots, the Cetus did not weathercock excessively. The boat was easily trimmed by edging or dropping the skeg slightly…although this was hardly necessary.
- Surfing. I’ve always considered the Explorer to be a great boat in the surf and the Cetus is comparable. Fast enough to catch waves easily, and very manueverable (in comparison to other sea kayaks) on a wave, carving turns nicely. The bow tended to lift, rather than plunging/pearling on steep wave faces. A very comfortable boat in rough water, for sure.
- Outfitting and Finish.
Hatches. The 4-hatch configuration (there is a knee tube accessible with a small hatch on the foredeck) was a great addition. Beyond making use of otherwise wasted space, the knee tube adds structural strength to the deck. It’s definitely not a gimmick…I’d expect to see other boat manufacturers going this route in the near future…much as American boat makers have caught on that day hatches are a good idea! The fore and aft hatches were both full size, oval Kajaksport hatches. Both stayed bone dry. The two-oval hatches make sense on an expedition boat…much more so than the two round hatches on my NDK. There as a little overhang on the edges of the bow hatch…I guess that bothered me aethestically, but didn’t seem to pose a problem.
Coaming. One feature I appreciated was that the front deck was angled down from the coaming, which made putting the spray skirt on much easier. This may seem an insignificant matter, but when your getting pounded by waves after a rescue, its nice to be able to get that skirt back on pronto.
Security Cleat. Another nice addition was a security cleat just behind the seat, which makes it easy to secure your boat to your rack. I’d like to see it modified slightly to serve double duty as stay for running a deck mounted tow line through.
Thigh Braces. The boat I was paddling was a prototype, so it lacked thigh braces. The word is that the boat will ultimately be outfitted with whitewater-style thigh braces (ala Pyranha kayaks) as well whitewater style adjustable backband. Again, here’s an idea that is well past its time, with P&H making good use of its relationship with Pyranha kayaks.
Footpegs. The footpegs in the boat were a new system that can be adjusted without reaching all the way into the boat. They were solid and stayed in place during multiple rescues and reentries in rough water.
Finish. The rest of the boat had the expected attention to detail most paddlers associate with P&H. The Kevlar lay-up was flawless. And, although I’m not a fan of metal flake, the boat looked great.
- OVERALL ASSESSMENT:
The Cetus is billed as a “playful expedition boat.” With its predictable handling in a variety of conditions, ample storage space, excellent tracking, and speed, I’d say it’d make a great boat for multi-day trips. But unlike some big expedition boats, this kayak is great in the surf, edges and carves turns, rolls easily, and is fun to paddle. Mission accomplished.
My only complaint about the Cetus was that it felt a bit straight-leggy (is that a technical term?). But since the prototype didn’t have thighbraces, I did have to lift my knees higher than normal to maintain solid contact with the kayak. I’m also a small paddler (5’9", 150lbs). P&H will be producing a smaller version and I think a lower deck + the whitewater thigh braces will resolve that problem. As an aside, I didn’t feel uncomfortable in the full size Cetus, and while it was at Sea Kayak Georgia a number of people sat in the boat and all found it comfortable, including my buddy who is 6’4" and 200lbs.
As you can tell, I’m excited about this new boat. I think for those who are frustrated with NDK’s quality control problems (and there are pages and pages of posts on here about fixing NDK boats!), this boat represents a real alternative to the Explorer.
Sounds very interesting
How do you feel the Cetus’ performance/personality compares to an Aquanaut?
Except…
At 5’9" a male is at average size. Hopefully the smaller version will be something that’ll work for an average sized woman.
Strong yes but the Cetus is no Nord LV
Strong yes, negative no, well not with the boat.
kayak41north I think you misinterpret the intent of my post. I have no problem with it being based on the Capella, as this is a good boat.
True I’ve not paddled it yet, and this frustrates me that a British sea kayak company couldn’t point me towards anywhere in Britain where I could!
The main thrust of my post was answering the original question “New Cetus is it comparable with the Nordkapp LV” and the answer to that is clearly no! As your post confirms, as does Peter’s, it is more comparable to the Explorer
My other comments were based on conversations had with P&H dealers, team paddlers, reps and staff all of which led me to believe they were launching the first “new generation boat” since Peter left and this was going to be ground-up-new, showing a clear new vision for where the company was heading. To quote a direct source “we are starting with a clear sheet and constructing an entirely new wood-strip model for the initial prototype” What is frustrating is that clearly this was hype/marketing/rubbish call it what you will! Everyone who has seen it, including Peter, who would know better than most, confirms it is a stretched and modified capella
Again nothing wrong with that as an approach and if it results in an OK boat, some would say “so what” but others would prefer a more honest no spin response to questions directed directly to the companies agents
found ‘action pictures’
would love to see more!!!!
http://tinyurl.com/ygwwep
that black on black capella 161 is sexy lookin too!!!!
some more review info on Cetus
Hiya- I figured I’d throw my real world experiences with the Cetus into the fray. Just to give a bit of background,I am a P&H freak. I currently own an Outlander, a Capella 163,and Easky RM. I have owned a Capella RM, a Capella 169,and Orion. I have paddled the Sirius M, HF, L, Bahiya and Quest on multiple occasions and in a variety of conditions, overnights, chunky conditions, etc. I got the chance to play with the Cetus in the fall. It was flat water, which was a bummer, but what can ya do? So, take this review with the flatwater grains of salt as needed.
The Cetus has some resemblance to a stretched Capella or Outlander, but there are some real differences. The proto hull that I paddled has more vee than the Cap 163, and has more volume amidships at the “chine”. There is less rocker overall in this boat than is typical in my P&H fleet at least. This sucker has got some SPEED!
It is a pretty tracky boat,little too much for my taste, but I like willful boats. It wasn’t as stiff as the Sirius, but no wandering like my Cap 163 is sometimes prone to.
Which leads to the big W word. Weathercocking is something that I have learned to deal with in my boats, and the main reason I got rid of my Cap 169 and Cap RM. Not a problem in the Cetus in the conditions I paddled in;winds gusting to maybe 12 knots on a slow moving river.
It also has really wonderful stability, a bit more primary than my Cap 163, but where I was impressed especially was the recovery off the secondary stability. The boat fairly leaps back to level once you allow it to. As another poster noted, the proto didn’t have any thighbraces, and at 5’2 and 160ish lbs, it was too big for me.
I can’t wait to see what the lower volume version is like…Especially in the chunky stuff! Overall the Cetus struck me as a fast, tracky hull with better and more obvious secondary stability than any of the other boats in P&H’s line that I have experience with.
And before you ask, yes I work in the industry, and I sell both Valley and P&H boats.
ok -
so most boats in this class are
17-18’ long
21-22" wide
some kind of “semi,hard,chine…”
some kind of “hull”
and Volume all over the map…
and a cockpit somewhere.
tolerance seems to be within 10% on these variables -
this thread is awesome.
BS on the Bastardization. Design a boat or paddle - or both.
Perhaps because the Cetus is a Cetus!
Having only paddled the Nord LV briefly, it’s hard to give a solid comparison…if my post seemed to focus on Explorer/Cetus comparisons, it’s only because I paddle an Explorer and therefore used that as my point of reference.
The Nordkapp LV seems to have a bit more rocker than than the Cetus, and obviously less volume. However, I think someone in the market for a Nord LV might want to take the Cetus for a test paddle.
But is the Cetus just a stretched out Capella? Not being a boat designer (happily, just a boat paddler!) I can’t comment on how this boat came into being, but I can say that it handles VERY differently from a Capella. An earlier post hits the nail on the head regarding the differences.
I can’t speak to pre-production hype, and I guess the genesis and marketing of a design matters to me a lot less than how the boat performs. There are plenty of 100% original kayak designs out there that I would never want to paddle!
Vela: not P. Orton
"…is largely a stretched out and more recent version of the Vela, which I have and is credited to Peter Orton."
It wasn’t Peter:
from http://www.ukriversguidebook.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3565&highlight=vela
Regarding sea kayaks (P&H used to be involved in anumber of kayaking disciplines and is still 3 brands, P&H Sea Kayaks, Revenge polo kayaks and Gorilla paddles)I was involved more in the strategy side I.e. deciding what needs designing, at what length, width etc. When I got interested it was all Derek Hutch boats, Icefloe, Orion, Fjord were all derivatives of the same design at 60cm width and Baidarka/Dawn Treader, again the same design with different ends at 52cm width. Basically there were fast boats and stable boats with not much in between. And yes I do believe Derek’s boats were of a freeboard that suited himself. At the time North Shore were doing well in the middle range, I.e. boats at about 56cm. After the market research I did a marketing plan which basically said "dump the wide boats except the Onion (oops Orion), replace the Baidarka with a new design (Sirius)and put something (in plastic and glass) in the mid stability zone (Capella). Also part of the plan was to replace the seating which was in those days bloomin awful.I did some work on the Sirius (most done by Peter Orton) and also designed and shaped the Vela (small kayak, not so prominent as niche market). Years ago I shaped the Iona for Derek Hutch and a two person and three person tourer for the Swedish agent. I was also the person who instigated the new seating system after interviewing over 100 paddlers and finding comfort to be the number one selling point.
The Sirius, Capella and Quest were all designed by Peter Orton (note that the Sirius was based around Derek’s Baidarka hull - don’t worry he knows!).
Boat Design
So a question -
if a boat has a shallow V - or shallow arch - or Deep V - or some combination similar to all the boats with similar hulls - should they still be considered an “adaptation” of a previous design?
Is it merely marketing - or subjective to whoever wants to lay claim to the “orignial” design.
Many older designs are now considered Rubbish - some are still respected, paddled and sold. The Rubbish are either tossed in the bin or updated properly. Either by massive or minor changes. I think claiming that someone has merely “bastardized” or adapted a design needs to be tested on the water and see how similar the boats truly are…aren’t all kayaks some form of adaptation of a previous design…
Not trying to be pedantic
Not trying to be pedantic but I always like to keep the record straight. The Vela was developed from a prototype for a single hatch day boat, that we were going to call the islander. Although this never went into production (to expensive for the intended market) it formed the basis for the Vela and Easky models. Julian and I are good friends add I’m sure we wouldn’t fall out over who was credited with the Vela design, yes he did much of the shaping i.e. model work but the core design and specification had already been established and inside all kayaks was a licence sticker crediting me with the design.
Not trying to be too egotistical over this but I am very proud of the designs I have been involved with. Obviously no design is done in isolation and I have been fortunate to have had several good people to bounce ideas off over the years, Julian being one, Jason Buxton being the one I currently rely on for second opinions on ideas.
Lineage Mapping
Peter,
A chart of lineage of British sea kayaks would be of interest and useful to those of us who have an affection for these boats.
It seems as if you are carrying in your head much of the information that would be needed for such charting. I would imagine that Frank Goodman and Aled Williams could fill in whatever gaps you may have in your knowledge.
The Nigels and Derek have commented farily extensively on their designs and seem to be responsive to queries. Maybe someone from North Shore and input from Kirton could elaborate on the lineage of each’s sea kayak designs.
North Shore is now under our wing!
Could be easier than you think. We recently did a deal with Mike Nelson of North Shore, whilst North Shore keeps it own identity, a separate plant in the North East and design input from Mike Nelson, We are taking over marketing, distribution and development of the range, including new RM versions of the Shore Line and Atlantic models.
The updated North Shore Line should start to appear in the US towards the end of 2007 with full availability in 2008
Rubbish?
Boy, I bet a listing of the boats considered Rubbish would generate some interesting threads.
"Rubbish Thread"
Ed,
Who would you nominate to initiate the ‘rubbish’ thread
I’ve heard some off the cuff remarks from some very experienced paddlers/coaches which were very clear as to what they considered ‘rubbish.’
I wonder if anyone will weigh in…
After you
Well, I think you have a great opening to say, I have heard a great, but not named, paddler/coach say that boat X was rubbish. That way you are not saying the boat is rubbish, the proclaimer of rubbish remains anonymous, and we have the raw material for a great discussion/flame war/or whatever. So fire away.
Thanks!
Peter,
thanks for the details AND thanks A LOT for that fantastic boat. It fits me perfectly, looks great and paddles even better.
Too bad that P&H is having problems now and don’t even update their website. The quality of the boat is excellent…
how about that mapping?
Cetus: weather cocking
I cannot agree. In flat water, with the skeg up, the Cetus points up in the slightest of breezes. One moment of inattentiveness and the boat goes off course (I compared my Romany in the same conditions and did not have this problem. I am a level $ coastal open water instructor). The boat requires a lot of attention.