QCC is having a great sale as usual. I want a Q700 in the worst way but it will be several years before I can do anything. Anyone want to by a just like new Eddyline Nighthawk 16? 
Itās possible your present boat is
just as good or better for your area than the QCC.
Wellā¦
What Iām really after is a bit more speed with less effort. 80% of my paddling is calm water but with time I hope to throw in some more challeging locations. The Nighthawk is a super boat and I would keep it if given the chance.
I know Winters is a top designer, and
QCC boats look great for covering ground. Sometimes it puzzles me that they have such low rocker and such a long waterline. But Iām much less experienced than you, and I defer entirely to those who have paddled QCC craft in strong ocean conditions.
I guess your issue is whether you will gain enough cruising speed or cruising ease in the QCC to justify the economics of selling and buying.
more speed will require more effort
To get more speed with less effort would be a heck of an accomplishment.
or sometimes ā¦
you just want different stuff for no really good justifiable reason
How about a lightweight solo canoe?
Do you have a lightweight solo canoe for sale? Iām in PA just across the Delaware.
NH is very efficient
Unless you really want a workout and work at going fast (whatever that means), I doubt you would gain much over the NH in terms of maintaining a solid cruising speed.
To me the NH seemed very efficient and easily cruised at a good speed. Seems it would be a more fun boat to play with than the 700 as well.
QCC low rocker = BS myth
Love you folks who make these blanket statements with such certainty and yet make such fundamental errors as equating bow rake with rocker, basing assumptions on photos, etc. L
The 600/700 actually have quite a bit of rocker - comparable to many āBritā sea kayaks (more than some, less than some - pretty damn average on balance). Do not compare to/confuse with EPIC on this as these differ considerably. EPICs are much flatter along the keel (and even thatās a bit irrelevant given that rockerās impact on overall performance is about as poorly understood in casual paddling circles as chines! L)
I donāt knowā¦
ā¦that Eddyline Nighthawk 16 you have is a gorgeous boat. Iād love to have something like that.
700 speed
It happens that this morning I mounted a kt meter on my several month old Q700. There is no doubt that I am averaging about 0.25 kt faster in the Q700 vs my Solstice GTS or my Seda Ikkuma. This is based on times over a constant 8 nautical mile distance. These 2 hour paddles are at moderate effort. I am not a racer.
Here is a report on my knotmeter tests this morning that I emailed to a friend:
The knot meter was simple to mount and worked very nicely. Very easy to
read. Resolution is 0.05 kts. Accuracy is unknown but consistent with my
estimates based on distance to Crystal Pier. To maintain a constant speed
requires attention the meter, not difficult, but without attention speed
will vary quite a bit. A small head wind, 5 kts, can cause 0.2 kt reduction
in speed. I used the 700 and started with the Werner Kalliste at 220 cm.
All intervals were 10 min, which turned out to be a good test time.
To get a rough feel of speeds, and to warm up, I just paddled at varying
effort for 10 or 15 min. At a relaxed pace, easier than my usual 2 hr
effort, speed was about 4.3 kts. I could easily get to over 5 kts. So my
first interval was at 4.3. It was relaxed. Second interval was at 4.5. No
difficulty at all maintaining this, though it was notably a bit harder; I
would say a moderate exercise pace. Next interval was 4.8 kts, requiring a
fairly hard effort but not tremendous. 4.8 would probably be more than I
could sustain for 2 hr. Next a 5 kts interval which I did not complete.
After about 1 min at 5 kts I was confident that I would be able to complete
the interval. After 2 min I was doubtful. At 3 min I decided, probably
not. I quit at 4 min. From previous experience, confirmed by the rowing
machine, it is very hard to project what you could do without actually doing
it.
Went back to the launch point and changed to the AT at 226 cm with a less
powerful blade. It was immediately apparent that I could go faster with
this paddle, which was a surprise because it does not āfeelā faster. My
first interval was at 5 kts which I could not hold with the Kalliste, but
had no problem holding with the AT, though at hard effort. I did another
interval at 4.8 kt which was clearly easier than with the Kalliste. Down at
4.3 kts there was no detectable difference between paddles. 4.3 is quite
easy to maintain with either.
For your sake I did one punch with the AT and reached 6.0 kts.
Next test will be with the GTS some time this week.
ā¦you just want different stuffā¦
Yup! Know it well 
Low rocker compared to???
Seconding Greyak.
A QCC700 has about the same amount of rocker as a Valley Aquanaut which is less than a Pintail and more than a Legend.
I hear they scratch easy.
all boats scratch easy
if you use them hard. QCCās are great boats, I love my 700x. Very fast, I recommend them.
Keep both!
I would you all you could to keep both. I have a 700 carbon kevlar that I love and use for long distance racing but for rec paddling I have a CD Sirocco (plastic brit boat 16ā6"L 23"W). If I only used the 700 it would get too beat up. FYI - w/ the same paddle and effort the QCC cruises about a mile an hour faster than the sirocco and even though the beam of the 700 is 2" less the stability in rough water is just as good if not better. KEEP BOTH - you wont regret it.
Iām looking at the 700 and it has less
rocker than some Neckys of comparable length. I trust my eyes. It doesnāt have much rocker.
Well, excuse us if we donāt trust ā¦
ā¦ your eyes, and prefer to actually compare directly, or even measureā¦
Pointier ends have a funny way of altering relative arcs/curves as far as the āeyeā goes (biggest reason this myth persists).
Iāve had a Pintail (referenced as it is generally considered to have lot of rocker) and QCC 700 side by side (owned and paddle both) and if you ONLY look at the curvature of the keel between bow and stern knuckle (AKA rocker) - thereās not a big difference. Difference (and what the eye keys in on) is mostly in the ends. If you let the ends play optical illusion tricks - then yes they will look a lot different. Side note: The Pintail (AKA Pinwheel) spins so easy not because of itās rocker as many may imagine, but because of itās relatively short waterline - which gets even shorter when put on edge (like all kayaks). This is much more important than the rocker.
Main take away here for all you non-biased folks should be: QCC kayaks DO indeed have rocker, and are NOT flat keeled as is often claimed by dubious sources. Theyāre not play boats, and not meant to be, but can still be surprisingly maneuverable given the LWL.
Depends
on what you want to use the boat to do. Wildlife observation is not enhanced by speed. Powerboats do well for that. If you are a member of the casual paddling circle and not the techno elite follow your heart and not the specs.
Depends on which QCC.
My 400X doesnāt appear to have much rocker. The 600X and 700X apparently are different, but Iāve never seen them in person.