Forgive the newbie question, I could not find an answer for this via search.
Would I be missing out if I went with a shorter 18’ tandem like a WS polaris 180t, CD double vision, Delta 17.5t over a long 21’ tandem like a CD Unity, Libra XT, Passat G3?
My wife and I are not advanced paddlers, we would be paddling estuaries, bays, open ocean a couple miles from shore, but for day trips - we do not do overnight expeditions via kayak so do not value storage space much. We don’t surf etc, but would need to be able to launch on beaches through EZ to moderate surf at times. We are slow paddlers and do not usually paddle more than 8-10 miles in a day in our singles to give an idea of our level. We are okay synchronizing paddling, that part has not been an issue for us when we have rented short SOT tandems so far.
I do have the means to transport and store a 21’ kayak, but have a feeling more work would mean paddling less.
Also depends on the total load you are going to paddle with and the effective waterline of these boats. ~17 feet on the waterline can be fine with about < 550 lb aboard.
I think that the shorter boat would do just fine. Similar to single kayaks that have gotten shorter as people do less long expeditions, the same should hold true for tandems.
Some of the pros and cons:
Shorter boat usually means lighter boat if same material, so easier to handle off the water. Given how heavy tandems can be, this could be a big issue.
Speed likely wouldn’t be all that different between shorter and longer if the boat widths are are similar. If different, then a wider boat likely would be a bit slower.
Shorter boat would have you and your partner sitting closer together. At some point you would be close enough that your paddles may start hitting if you and your partner are out of sync. Having to be in sync can be challenging for many couples. Not having to worry about this can be a relationship saver.
Open ocean and surf can be committing. I would take classes on these in single kayaks before tackling in a tandem.
Long boats are more seaworthy, but they can be more difficult to control in waves, wind, and strong currents. You made two points that conflict: plan to paddle estuaries, bays, and open oceans a couple of miles from shore. Then you mentioned you are slow paddlers and only paddle 8 -10 miles per trip.
When paddling open water you must be thoroughly familiar with the conditions you’ll face and weather patterns. Both of you should carry a VHF radio with at least one tuned to the NOAA weather channel. How fast you paddle isn’t relevant, but it’s important to know how fast you “can” paddle and “how long you can sustain” it. If you can paddle at 3.6 mph but unexpectedly face a 3 mph current while in open water, you must be able to assess that condition without relying on visual cues to avoid burning out - rather than paddling an hour to get back to the launch site, it could take 6 hours or more to get back. To complicate matters, riding a 3 mph current while paddling at 3.6 mph could put you further away than you anticipated. Find a nautical chart of the area and become familiar with channel depth and distance to landmarks. Here’s a good book on kayak navigation to understand using ranges, estimating distances, strategies for countering drift, and more:
If you intend to explore, keep records of your trips, and make it a point to predict and understand conditions so you know what to expect when conditions deteriorate. Always anticipate that conditions can deteriorate. Don’t venture further from shore than you can confidently return safely.
When paddling in tidal areas where rivers meet larger bodies of water, such as a bay, sediment carried by the river will form deltas and shifting shoals. Mild conditions you face on the outgoing stage of your trip can change within 30 minites as the tide changes. Learn and understand your abilities and limitations. Before going to unfamiliar areas, ask local paddlers for specific details about the area.
Test the kayak before buying it. Buy a kayak that is comfortable. I’ve never paddled a tandem, but believe the team will only be as good as the slowest paddler, because the person in the rear seat has to match the cadence of the person in front; synchronization is critical, as is a sense of balance. The difference between traveling in two solo kayaks and a tandem is that you don’t have a partner in a separate boat to assist in recovery.
Reminds me of the story of two canoe designers, where one said that longer was better and the other one replied: why didn’t you design a longer boat then?
I guess you could call that a paradox. While the longer boat bridges waves better so it doesn’t climb and plunge in waves, it’s harder to control in conflicting currents or fighting weather cocking. It’s not hard to realize how one change improves one aspect of handling while hurting another.
A wider boat might improve primary stability while it has a negative impact on secondary stability. I can’t compare all boats, but I can describe how length and width impact performance between the 125 Tsunami (26" wide), the 145 Tsunami (24.5" wide), and the 175 Tsunami (24" wide).
While the 145 Tsunami tracks by edging alone, the speed potential and tracking drops markedly as the wave height and wind increases. In my paddling environment and based on my skill, when steady wind increases over 10 to 15 mph, gusting to 20 mph, the avg speed drops by nearly .8 mph. On the other hand, the 175 Tsunsmi can maintain speed, but edging control becomes impractical when wind speeds go over 8 mph, at which point, I can’t stay on track without aid of the rudder.
I can provide detailed log entries, wind and tide data to support my comment. I initially used the 125 Tsunami but upgraded to the 145 because the conditions made the 125 impractical, then bought a 175 to take advantage of it’s ability to handle harsher conditions. However, the 145 is still my favorite kayak for general moderate conditions.
There’s a difference in my mind between seaworthiness, or the ability to handle adverse conditions and the ability to control a boat.
Length adds to the seaworthiness in more than one way, primary by adding load capacity.
125 (12’9" x 26" wide, 15" deck, 300 lb max cap)
145 (14’6" x 24.5" wide, 16" deck, 350 lb max cap)*
175 (17’6" x 24" wide, 15.75 deck, 400 lb max cap)
based on pre-2000 model year stats.
My definition of seaworthiness is the ability to maintain speed without taking on water. Several features make the 175 more seaworthy - 3 ft longer than the shorter 145, 50 lbs greater load capacity which adds to the freeboard, and deck height of 15.75 is close to 145 deck which helps to shed waves.
Ease of control in my mind is the ability to manuever the boat and keep it on a straight track primarily by shifting body weight alone; I limit the use paddle stroke for course correction as a last resort. I have a rudder equipped 145 and consider the rudder as a useless attachment, because once the 145 becomes dufficult to manage, the conditions hamper speed and the 175 is more seaworthy, albeit harder to control without the rudder.
The rudder provides adequate control, but it reduces speed by .3 to .5 mph. That doesn’t make it less seaworth, just slower than without the rudder. Control/speed becones a compromise between working harder to burn off energy reserves, or compromise and takeca speed hit for greater control. There comes a point where the paddler has to consider when to accept that compromise.
If you feel that control is the ability to turn, we’re using different criteria to assess seaworthiness/control.
That’s more a matter of shape and volume distribution, not longer in itself.
Also it depends on te wave conditions and speed.
Personally I value other aspects more when it comes to “seaworthy”.
And perhaps the question to be answered first here is: what is long?
Because the OP assumed 18’ as short somehow, I think that 18’ is pretty long depending on the effective waterline of course.
Don’t disagree. All part of the calculations. Perhaps I should have said, “Longer kayaks tend to be more seaworthy.” My comments are based on the narrow parameters I outlined above.
Similarly, length doesn’t guarentee higher speed. It merely improves the potential to reach higher speed. I’d direct anyone who is curious about the relationship between kayak design, seaworthiness, and speed, to review stats posted by @Craig_S. He shared details comparing the 175 Tsunami, 170 Tempest, and the 180 Tsunami Pro under different conditions . Whether the data should be accepted as valid is up to the reader. However, the stats invite challenge and refinement by other paddlers.
Certainly don’t disagree here, not only from experience but also the “wisdom” of John Winters.
Where you can find some writings of him here: http://www.greenval.com/jwinters.html
He also wrote some noteworthy things about seaworthiness, but unfortunately I cannot find them on a website anymore.
Great post. First sentence under Factirs Affecting Performance:
“Every canoe is a compromise between conflicting needs.”
No designs offers the ideal boat. It’s alway a matter of the paddler selecting a series of the most desireable traits. I favor speed but am willing to sacrifice speed for stability that comes from width. The deck height catches wind that affects handling, but it helps to cut through waves without washing over a low deck and into the cockpit. I’ve paddled the open water of the Chesapeake Bay without the use of sprayskirt and haven’t taken on more water than can be handled by a kitchen sponge. That doesn’t make it a desireable boat for everyone. My sister paddles a 140 Tsunami (24" wide) and can pull away from me in high waves, because her 145 lbs body weight is better suited for her needs and is more seaworth for her, compared to me in the 145 Tsunami at my 255 lb weight. Now at 230 lbs, the 145 Tsunsmi is more adept at handling waves, but the 175 Tsunami is still better suited for me in the same conditions. However, it doesn’t handle as well as the 14 ft boat.
That’s why its so important to test a kayak before buying it. The 175 Tsunami is my first choice for the conditions I face here, but that doesn’t mean I’d prefer it on the Great Lakes or Long Island Sound. Seaworthy under certain conditions doesn’t apply to every environment or condition.
I have no experience with Tandem kayaks but I do have a lot of experience in storage and transportation of kayaks. Maybe it would be best to concentrate more of the ease of loading and unloading a kayak and then go for the longer one. If “unhandiness” is the limiting factor for you but not space, I would recommend a bit more thought to simply making the longer kayak more handy to load and unload.
Most paddlers look at what is on the market but I think in many cases, making what you need may be a better option. A way to load the long and somewhat heavy kayak is still very easy if you make a ladder rack. I have made several for friends and I can do one fast, strong and very easy and have it all done in less then 1 hour. I wish I had the capability to make videos so I could show what I do and how. But I made one for a friend who has a fishing kayak that weighs over 100 pounds and it’s very easy to use. But I am very “low tech” and have no such cameras or equipment.
Loading and unloading can often be made easy by a set of handing pulleys and ropes at home, but that solves only 1/2 the problem. You have no such equipment at the water, so getting the kayak back on the truck or car is always something you have to do. I use a 2 WD old Toyota pickup as my kayak vehicle and I made a 2 kayak rack that fits it perfectly and loading my kayak from the ground takes be about 3-4 minutes including tying it on.
But if storage was not a problem I would guess the longer tandem is going to be better overall and if it were me, I might give efforts and thought to a rack and a system of loading the longer and somewhat heavier kayak because having the better craft to carry more gear easier and handle potential situations in the future a bit better then the shorter boat is likely to be worth more in the long run then a few minutes 1 time per trip of “loading ease.”
Just food for thought. As I say, I have no experience with them so I am just in speculation here, but I would think harder about the better tool to use 6-10 hours in day instead of the added efforts used up for 5 minutes a day.
I’m not sure where you are based but having paddled a 17’ beamy tandem and a higher performing 21’ tandem some distance on OperationDeepBlue.org, I’m going to throw another option in the works if there is opportunity to check one out local to you.
The Stellar ST19 or for more flexibility in 1-2 paddler format and portability is the ST19MOD. Same kayak but in sectional configuration.
Cockpits spaced far enough apart to keep from clacking blades, high enough secondary stability for confidence in conditions if your skill set isn’t that refined, fitted cockpits for control vs. rec. style openings, skeg and rudder control. 61lbs as a one piece or 68lbs as a modular. Both weights are very light for a tandem. Cruises at a nice fast clip and responds to an edge well.
Link has photos of the modular I have on hand assembled which gives a more in-depth photo than mfg. rendering.
Years ago (2007?) my wife and I started our kayaking with a 18’ 3" Seaward Gemini tandem, weighing about 80 pounds. We used it for several years before switching to singles, about 17’ each. At that earlier time most of our paddling was near Nanaimo on Vancouver Island. We were quite happy with the boat, but would not have wanted anything much heavier. We were not camping so didn’t need the space provided by a longer boat.
Here are some pictures of 2 of my kayaks on a ladder rack I made. My rack is set into 4 up-right legs, bolted to the tool boxes on my little pickup, but I have done the same kind of rack for various cars and made them to fit the roof rails that the cars come with.
Making them is neither hard to do or very expensive.
For cars I make the racks so they go on and come off very easily and quickly, so the paddler can place them on the car when and if they want to. The loading of the kayak itself is usually only about a 3 minute job including bow and stern lines and 2 girth lines. Depending on the car the loading of the rack can involve either screw clamps, ratchet straps or rope ties. So some take 10 minutes to install, but the fastest ones take about 2 minutes.
