do you want to elaborate?
Oh mighty Nanook of the North? Words of wisdom like yours don’t come aong often (thank goodness)
I have paddled both tarpons
and the difference in efficiency is negligible compared to my 700.
Anything works "messing about"
for a few miles. Even 10 is hardly “touring”. Not enough mileage for efficiency to be a dominant factor.
Rough surf landings? People do that in all manner of craft. Skill/technique dependent as much as anything. My Q700 would no doubt handle a bad landing better than I would!
You do realize you are not forced to ride up the beach in a SINK, or stay in and get broached and pummeled in a foot of water, and that you can pop out in the water and walk it in much like an SOT, right? Many landing options with a SINK. Not always graceful - but you’re not limited to any set style of launching or landing. Cockpit exit can be just about as speedy as an SOT.
Thanks for making my point Jim
The Q700 being a big leap beyond all plastic SOTs is not relevant to your safety point, but nicely reinforces mine which was:
You can’t claim touring SOTs are safer than touring SINKs when there are really no equivalent touring SOTs to even compare.
It’s like saying magic carpets are safer than motorcycles (which you can prove by pointing out that no one has died on a magic carpet in the US - ever!).
There is NOTHING safer than SINKs at the level of performance of sea/touring kayaks because there are no SOTs that performs at the level of a sea/touring kayak.
Iceman will disagree and cite the Isthmus as an SOT touring boat - but I’ll concede that exception on speed only, not on safety. It’s a specialized and rather high strung kayak. Mere mortals can get back in a SINK a lot easier than they can get back on an Isthmus. I can do several re-entry/rescue techniques with my Q700 - I could barely even sit on an Isthmus. It would take a lot more practice to learn recoveries with it than my SINK. Even my racing ski is much easier to remount than the Isthmus - which is really a 17’ ski with hatches that has to be actively paddled to be stable, while I can just bob around quite comfortably in my SINK.
The Isthmus actually makes my point about higher performance touring SOTs being too demanding - and not being the equivalent of SINKs at all. Rewarding for skilled paddlers yes, but not a safer alternative to SINKs.
Layup, not cockpit
My comment on your QCC has to do with how it would handle landing through heavy shorebreak onto a rocky beach with a camping load. I don’t doubt that you can get out of the cockpit, it’s what happens next that would be tricky.
I think you’re working from a rather idiosyncratic definition of “touring” that would, if pushed, exclude not only SOTs but also your QCC (because it’s not laid up heavily enough for serious rock-bashing), shorter SINKs (for lack of speed and gear capacity), and who knows what else. Maybe the Nordkapp and Explorer are the only real touring boats. Or maybe the Mako is a touring boat because it’s good at covering distance. I dunno, but I suspect that distance covered touring has more to do with how long people stay on the water than how fast their boats are, and I’d tend to use the term for a fairly broad range of kayaks that are capable of carrying a camping load on a coastal trip.
Seda Revenge
I don’t really care about rocks much
You brought that into it. I do not include rock landings in heavy surf a requirement for a “touring boat”.
Maybe you’re thinking “expedition” kayak? Even then - surviving what you describe is not guaranteed by overweight chop strand glass layups. They can have holes punched clean through and ends snapped off the boat. Kevlar layup is more likely to crush/soften but remain in one piece. Which is better? Depends on what you hit, how hard, and where you are when it happens.
Have you ever even see a Kevlar QCC up close and personal? I think you would be quite surprised how much of a whack QCC’s Kevlar layup can take. All composite boats are not hyper thin like skis. Maybe you need to visit the mainland and check out more boats?
Well, …
by the marketing info maybe, but 25" beam seems excessive for efficient touring. To me that puts it more into relaxed tour/crossover boat territory.
It shares hulls with the Viking, and I don’t see anyone raving that is a great touring boat. I don’t hear anything about them actually. Revenge would also be harder to control in rough stuff than the Viking (better control in a SINK - thigh straps are not the same).
Still - it’s as close as any and should be mentioned. Don’t see many though - except for sale. That says a lot. If it was all it’s made out to be it should be much more popular.
'Cuda’s owned the two more legendary composite SOTs now, a Revenge and a Shearwater. I have also owned a Shearwater. The other thing we have in common: After trying faster SOTs, we’ve both found our way to SINKs. I won’t speak for him, but I found the Shearwater (nice as it is) a bit limited as compared to a fast SINK. Giving up performance (control and speed) just to stay in open cockpit boats no longer made sense. I can much more easily manage wind/wave in the SINK.
So what is a touring kayak?
I kind of thought it had to do with hauling a load on a coastal trip. You seem to be talking about the fastest day-paddling boat you’re personally comfortable with. That still strikes me as an idiosyncratic definition. When you get more comfortable in your ski, will it be the ideal touring kayak? Does the Pintail qualify, or is too short and slow?
well, it was not a safety point
I was merely pointing out that speed differences between the the 140 and 160 are not that much. You seem to be splitting hairs on this issue.
However, regards safety; either kayak is safer than any SINK in most conditions. How about that for a sweeping statement?
futura 2
i can’t believe i’m helping to prolong this thread, but here goes:
if you want a fast (as fast as the 700 or perhaps a bit faster) SOT that you can bob around on, without having to constantly keep moving like in a higher end ski, you should try a futura 2 (i also have a high end ski and a 700, so i think i’m qualified to assess its relative merits). i keep an old one up in long island, and have been out in 6-8 ft waves, all sorts of wind chop, etc. you can hang out in that boat with your feet in or out and just chill. it comes with hatches. it has adjustable footpedals. i believe the dimensions are 19’ x 20", which are actually quite similar to the 700.
i’m a bit surprised that no one here paddles one- it seems to fit the bill quite nicely for what a lot of people want.
andrew
also, some bad logic
"Level of performance of sea kayak touring"??!! That is not relevant to the safety question. Any SOT with the right dims is a touring kayak. Too much nuance with your thinking.
You have raced a 160 before against SINKs. I’m sure you lost, but the 160 is still a touring kayak and is in the same class with a Q700 when informal races are organized. They just aren’t as efficient…but they ARE safer.
and finally…
ask at Florida Bay Outfitters which type of 17+ foot kayak they recommend to clients who rent for a day. They have SINKs as well but recommend to beginners to go with the SOT. That is simply because they are easier and safer to use.
For unskilled paddlers.
Once you have paddling skills, they are not safer than closed deck boats.
Once you have the SKILL to roll, it is safer to stay in the boat than to get out into the water.
Once you have the SKILL to handle waves and chop, most sinks are able to handle the conditions better than a SOT.
It is safer to ride a bike with training wheels, do you recommend all riders use them?
TRAINING WHEELS
is not a good analogy and it is demeaning to anyone who prefers SOT’s. And rolling is not a save-all cure-all because nobody has a reliable roll and most who kayak do not roll. Even experienced rollers many times have to wet exit. So drop that tired old defense.
I hope we are on the same page here. We are answering a request for opinions from someone who is an average kayaker or a novice. Sit On Top is safer because they are easier to climb back onto and most are wider and more stable than the standard SINK.
Just following your lead, Jim
You said: “With a SINK … the paddler struggles and struggles to get back in the half swamped boat … and he keeps falling off as waves keep hitting him … even with another paddler helping
… after two hours with the capsizee struggling and getting weaker and weaker in the cold water … the friend has to make a decision … and breaks for shore leaving his dieing friend … hoping he can get help from shore.”
I don’t know any paddlers that can’t be assisted back into a Sink in less than 1 - 2 minutes. I also don’t know any that couldn’t do a self rescue in less than 5 minutes. I find that demeaning of the people that I regularly paddle with. These folks all practice their rescue skills (whether they are on a SOT or in a SINK),
I won’t paddle on the ocean with people with less skills than that.
You also mentioned how you only have about 7 minutes to self rescue in cold water.
That is demeaning to the people (both SOT and SINK) who actually dress for the water temps. They would have a lot more time.
Your post also refrenced an outfitter that suggests beginners rent a SOT. I agree with that - but they damn sure should not be out in “bumpy” water. How many beginners, can hang onto their SOT before it blows away from them. Even with a paddle leash, there is considerable chance of losing the boat for a beginner.
That’s why most beginners are rented either SOT’s or rec boats for flatwater use.
Last weekend, a first time SOT kayaker drowned out here. Nobody knows the details, but his boat was found against some rocks and his body was later found to be wedged in the rocks of the harbor breakwater. The only known fact about his death according to the autopsy was that he died from drowning - no heart attacks.
What makes “SAFE”, is the paddler’s judgement, the paddler’s skills, then the equipment he/she is using.
I’ve got to think that…
…as a ski paddler, you have a different idea of how much initial stability others might want to have to just sit and enjoy the scenery for a bit.
Heck, I can barely even paddle my ski - but can sit still on it with feet in - but that’s not enough to make it a touring SOT. I’m sure the Futura is considerably more stable than a UX, but still doubt it’s the sort stability most are looking for in touring boat.
It sounds good - and would probably be a better choice for me as a first ski - but it’s still a ski. I’ll try one if given the chance out of curiosity - but until then you’re going to have a hard time convincing me it’s as secure as a 21" beam SINK. Rounder bottom and higher seat just don’t add up to that.
Could be why they are not so popular. Even though there is interest in faster touring SOTs, the Futura II is still a ski - which is a very different animal. Not everyone wants the ski feel or commitment, even when toned down.
160/140 speed - you’re dreaming, or…
…or just slow in general.
Take your 140 and paddle the Bogey course at best speed. Then compare to my time in 2003 - I was on my 160 - which I’d only had 6-7 months at that point.
I had to persuade them to even let me race as there were not SOT allowed. My reasonable finish among the SINKs is part of the reason they opened the long race to SOTs in 2004 - but only for 16’ and over.
Scupper Pros and Illusions are faster than the 140 - and none were close to me in the Bacall. Only thing close was a Napali - 3 minutes back.
For beginners
– Last Updated: Sep-30-04 12:02 PM EST –
Going out unsupervised - of course. I'd rent rafts too.
17’+ SOT rental?
That would be a Cobra or Heritage Expedition. I doubt they rent either. There are no 17+ SOTs I’d stick a first timer on.
Your defending just to defend, no matter how badly.
For a wake up call, go paddle Frank or Grayhawk’s 17’ Isthmus SOT (similar in performance to a your Q700). Do some deep water remounts and then tell me you feel safer on it.