Tempest 170 production year differences

I asked this question here and got no answers at all. So I’m posting what I found and hopefully some will find it useful. May be if you know other info - add it to the thread.

Sometime during the 2007 model year production run, after the early Fall of '06, plastic Tempest 170 have their foot peg rails mounted a couple of inches forward compared to earlier '07 models. Not sure about the '08 models or pre-'07 models.

Don’t know of any other changes, but this one is significant and I wonder why WS did not make it sooner.

Bottom line, I fit fairly comfortable in '08 or late '07 Temoest 170 but I could not fit in my '07 due to the rail mounted about 2-3 inches away from the front bulkhead instead of at it.

I ended-up moving the rails 1-2 inches forward and now they touch the foam bulkhead (there is still 2-3 inches b/w the bulkhead and the foot pegs, but the rails touch). I also had to move the seat back at least 2 inches to make me fit comfortably at my 6’4".

These are “large person” boats and this should have been the default configuration IMO. I suppose finally they are making them this way, but I had to modify mine.

I’ll post some photos of how I did it, but the only “trick” is that only one additional hole per rail is needed - the rear (close to the seat) screw can be reusd as there are two closely spaced “nuts” in the rail so I just used the one farther aft. The seat move back is straightforward, but measure carefully each side individually - the positions of the original holes was not quite symmetrical on both sides (nor was it on the rails for that matter).

And yes, the hatches all leaked…
… after only 10 minutes of rolling practice. The rear hatch had only a few spoons of water (not from the skeg). The front hatch had may be 2 cups as did the day hatch.

Not sure if these got flooded thru the hatch covers or thru the cockpit though. I did not see any imperfections in the seals on the bulkheads, so I presume it was thru the hatches. And yes, I did close them as well as they would go - the round hatches actually pop into place so it is clear that they are well closed. The oval hatch does not “pop” but it did not leak any significant amount either, even though I did cowboy re-entry over it…

you might try
small tubes going from each compartment to the cockpit if they aren’t already there. I’ve used the tiny tubes used on WD40 cans and the smaller cable rudder housing tubes with approx 3/32" ID. By equalizing the presssure through the cockpit it theoretically reduces the pressure at the hatch seals where water can come in as would occur when climbing across the deck or normal flexing when going through big waves. Put one in each aft compartment bulkhead and the front one. I put it about 2/3 up from the bottom.

Tempest hatches bulging and contracting
Kocho, I also just got a rotomolded Tempest 170 and although I have not tried rolling in it yet my hatches seem to be watertight. When it is warm out, the hatches balloon out slightly and opening them up lets out the warm air. When it is cold, they are like vacuum-sealed jars and opening them causes air to flow into the hatch. Did you notice if your hatches do this? I would suspect that if you had a bad seal they would not do this.

I’m curious to know if other rotomolded kayaks do the same.


I’ve had a Tsunami 145 before
and all three hatches on it behaved differently. The day hatch cover (there is no separate day hatch, but there are two covers in the back nevertheless) seemed watertight. The front round hatch used to get loose when mounted - its diameter was just a little too wide for the hatch opening and I could rotate it around the hatch even when fully seated - it was that loose. So I started to keep the hatch covers off the hatches at all times unless I’m in the water and that helped a bit. The rear hatch there did not leak and it was the same as in the Tempest.

So keeping the hatches off the boat when not used is essential - they will go tighter on when installed.

I have not had a chnace to observe bulging/sucking-in as I mounted the hatches when everything was already at temperature - there was not much of a change but I’ll keep my eyes open next time I’m on the water.

Hatches “leaked” when I originally
got my 170 in 03–later just made extra sure they were sealed by pounding my palm (sounds kind of kinky eh?) around the perimeter of the hatch after I closed them. Didnt have any problems after that—and the hatches are deceptive–they can seem sealed but unless you actually do the pounding thing, you can not be sure.

EZ and ONLY change made recently on T’s.


Thanks Steve
I whish I knew that before I bought. Not that much of a deal, but I now have two extra holes on my hull…

Any suggestion on what to use to fill them in permanently? I plugged them with a tire repair kit (fat rubber-ish insert and rubber cement) and it seems OK but it does not look quire permanent…

Filling through-hull holes
I use bolts/washers/nuts the same diameter as the ones holding the footpegs, except a shorter bolt so it doesn’t stick out inside the hull. You may have to install the footpeg assembly a bit higher or lower on the end that’s covering the old hole, but I think that’s better than depending on a plug. I use metal-backed rubber washers on the inside and outside, and a bit of sealant/adhesive such as Aquaseal between the washers and the hull.


– Last Updated: Jun-30-08 3:48 PM EST –

EDIT - after I wrote the below, I found this link: http://www.oceankayak.com/product_support/repair.html

Perhaps I should just do as they suggest there...


Like you I used bolts with rubber-backed steel washers on the outside and locking nuts with a plastic washers on the inside for where the seat bolt holes are. I have 4 bolts on each side now -;)

But I did not want to change the height of the rails and now I can't really use a bolt there to plug the hole. May be I should have mounted them higher after all and that would have allowed me to do what you suggested. I may just drip some melted plastic in the hole I can't find anything better and in case my current fix stops working.

I don;t consider this a critical thing as even if it fails in the water, it won't be too big of a deal for me as I never paddle in conditions where I could not syphone the water out or just get back to shore quickly. But still having a more "permanent" fix would be nice.

May be I will just use a longer bolt if it won't interfere with my foot on the inside. Perhaps I can put a closed top nut on the outside - if it is above the waterline most of the time, it should not matter for drag and because clsoed cap nuts are smooth should not catch on clothes/PFDs during potential rescues (being on the front probably makes that even less of an issue as rescues would be from the rear mostly).

That’s a poor way to tell if watertight
The hatch covers on my T165 will bulge with altitude gain or air temp increase. However, after rolling practice in hot air with cool or cold water, I do get tiny amounts of water in the day and rear hatches. It ONLY happens on such days, not on cool-water-cool-air days. I figure that on hot days, when the kayak hits the cool/cold water, the air contracts with enough force to literally suck in whatever is around the rim/cover interface. If I do not roll, the compartments stay completely dry so I know it’s not skegbox or bulkhead leakage.

I am finding the same thing happens with the Explorer LV I just picked up. The front BH is drilled in the middle to vent; the mid and rear ones are not. Those two hatch covers will bulge in hot air, yet on the 4 paddles I’ve done in this boat so far, there were a few drops of water in those compartments on at least one day–without any rolling practice. I suspect that the skegbox or the cable tubing needs a bit of sealant added. Will test this week and seal as needed.

Repositioning Footpegs
Remember, you only have to raise or lower the footpeg track at one end to avoid the plug nut, because the other hole won’t be covered (because you’ve moved the track forward or back).

Am I making sense? I feel like I’m having a hard time describing physical things these days. Probably early-onset senile dementia :wink:

Makes perfect sense
As I said, I was thinking of doing it but decided against it as I thought the level they were at was fine. In retrospect, I should have mounted them 1/2" higher in the front, thus allowing me to plug the “old” hole with a bolt/nut, which I can’t do now because of the rail covering it…