Tripper 172… vs. Discovery 169
Is the biggest difference between these two the Royalex and that the Tripper is a bit narrower? I have one guy telling me the Discovery is a dog in comparison.
Tripper 172… vs. Discovery 169
There is a bit of difference because
the Royalex is stiffer, and the Tripper is lighter. Think about it, you have to accelerate that boat with each stroke. The Tripper already weighs about 80 pounds. How much more do you want to horse around?
The flexibility of the Discovery hulls also means you are wasting a small amount of energy because the boat isn’t holding form properly. Eventually, a lot of Discovery hulls will hog upward in the center, and that really spoils handling. We paddled a 158 rental, and the bottom looked like it was swimming.
Call a spade spade =
The tripper far superior to the discovery. For all the reasons mentioned. The issue is cost and use. If you paddle a lot and if you can manage the cost the tripper will make you much happier.
They have a Wenonah Adorondack as well… would be a good substitute for the Tripper?
We own a 2006 OT Expedition 169 …
....... the Expedition 169 is the exclusive Bass Pro name for the OT Disco 169 .
The Disco does not have as much rocker as the Rx Tripper ... it is actually quite a bit less . The Disco does not have as pronounced of a shallow arch bottom as the Rx Tripper . Both rocker and arch are visibly less .
The Rx Tripper 172 is stiffer , less flexy in the hull bottom compared to the Disco 169 . On hot days and hot water our Disco's center bottom flexes up ever so slightly , but on cool water and cool days it does not flex up . I do expect this bottom flexing on our Expedition 169 to remain stable as described , but it may become a bit more flexy as time adds up , especially because we will not hesitate to run fast and hard over shallow ledges and river rocks which may drag bottom in the process .
I think the Rx Tripper can take way much more of this type of ledge and rock dragging because it's Rx , inherently stiffer in bottom flex , and a bit more of a shallow arch to begin with .
The older Rx Tripper's probably weighed about exactly the same as the new Disco 169's ... that's 84 lbs. ... the new Rx Trippers are advertised as 80 lbs. .
The Rx Tripper is a more capable WW canoe than the Disco . Although the Disco can safely go through some cls II rapids , even a short run through 30" wave trains , I do not consider it a WW canoe (and would not outfit it w/airbags as such) but simply restrict the WW level it can get into ... but I do consider the Rx Tripper a WW canoe (and if desired would outfit as such) , because it has the moderate rocker which becomes more important as the rapids get bigger . The rocker aids greatly in allowing the bow to rise up onto the rapid , as well the wide flare bow design does this same thing . The Disco has a well flared bow as well , so that helps it in rapids .
I agree that when the center hull bottom flexes up and down , that degrades some of the hulls efficiency , which means it will use a little more of your energy to paddle it . A totally stiff hull that does not flex such as a shallow arch or V bottom composite canoe would be the most efficient in terms of energy spent for forward progress made .
I've already told you about the current Bass Pro (Johnson Outdoor World) price for a brand new OT Expedition 169 (Disco) , and the 10% 1st purchase discount (if you sign up for their credit card - that's all stores Bass Pro policy) that puts you out the door for under $670. ... that's 100. bucks more now than when we bought ours in 2006 , still a very fair price for that canoe brand new (plus you may want to buy some other gear on that 1st purchase such as PFD's , dry bags , anchor , any camp gear , etc. - same 10% off if at 1st purchase) . We like ours alot , it's holding up really well , I don't baby it whatsoever , actually I abuse it some , and perhaps more important - I'm not afraid to abuse it because it takes it most excellently (and smiles when doing so) .
You could perhaps think of the Disco as an economy Tripper , but the two are different class boats . Both have great load capacity , both have large volume hulls (in that respect both are very equal) .
The guy telling you the disco is a dog
by comparison is correct. At least that is my experience.