valley Q-boat

Anybody own one or have experience in one.

Any feedback good or bad is appreciated.

did you look in the review section yet?
several in the Qcult…

in a nutshell…

good=this is a boat capable of speed,Greenland rolls,paddle camping IF you pack small or limit the shear amount of luxury items you take…for me a pro is the weight (i chose ultra-kevlar) and the fit is something I like. the most impressive characteristic is its ability to turn/edge,rare in a boat this long. Also pro is Valley Q/A. In the past the seat and band of a Valley boat was a negative, not any more-they are much improved.

bad=cost, some people dont like the THIGH braces, most kayaks have braces that are knee specific, the Q-boat has braces that touch from my knees down my thigh…very much like the thigh braces in FeatherCraft kayaks, because of this the Q-boat hardly needs a masik for a tight fit for contact for bracing or rolling. As alluded to above the Q-boat has much less capacity for gear than other boats of its length (attributable to the very low back deck, couple this with a skeg box and you simply have less room for stuff-plan/pack accordingly.

Hope this helps.

Thx for feedback
I appreciate your reply, I was wondering how

fast or comparible to what boats for speed

Q-boat definitely good looking boat

forgot to mention
in the post above or in the review that a boat that turns so easily needs an occasional assist in straight line paddling…if you get one get the skegged model :slight_smile:

Afer tinkering with the skeg in 10-15 mph wind you’ll see just little is needed to tract, but this was with an unloaded boat…all things change with more boat in the water!

gonna get slammed for this
I know that it is a really capable boat and apparently (according to its number one fan robert (medicineman) that is rubs your back, mixes you a drink and fans your brow while paddling too.

Me? I just think its ugly. I paddled it for a few minutes at Tybee and felt it was squirrely but I feel the same way about the legend which tells me that it probably is a killer boat in conditions. I have been told that it is a great surfer and conditions boat and that it rolls really well. I couldn’t get comfortable with those thigh braces and I didn’t like the seat much.

Probably a really fast boat too.

it’s still ugly though.



yeah if i had gotten an OI
I would be jealous too :wink:

The smallest amount of effort post lean to turn the Q versus the crow-bar machinations to turn the OI…or maybe its when you look at the back deck of the OI or feel its cockpit rim dig in your back on those layback rolls…

There can be only one Highlander-VALLEY !!!

I demoed one at a symposium
and I would highly reccomend that you test paddle one to see if it has the paddling characteristics you like.

don’t mind us
I have been ribbin Robert for months now about his fugly boat

he can’t help he has no taste.


Q-boat has a large bow skeg, makes it handle a little differant in certain wave/water conditions. this is a boat that really needs demoing in conditions more than on the flat water. The bow skeg pins the bow more than most boats on the market today when comming down a steep wave. When first concept talk of this boat…it was suppost to have been a longer Anas Acuta with a wee bit less rocker. I find it to be no such animal. It however is a fine boat in it’s own right, just be sure that the bow skeg characterists are what you want before buying.

I believe that the one of the reasons that the Q-boat ended up the way it did, was because of the NDK Greenlander…(actually another boat that would come into the running as an Anas Acuta HV) (owes some design to the AA mold Nigel borrowed from Valley) The Q-boat had to find a place and a design that would offer something differant for the public from what had already been done. From the side view, the Q looks more like an AA than the Greenlander. but the Greenlander has a bow more akin to the AA in slipery-ness

Best Wishes


a 2006 model in SC
I have a 2006 model Q boat. I formerly had a Nordkapp H2O and poly Avocet. All capable boats with some shared and unique traits.

My size 12/13 feet limit my choice in kayaks used primarily for day paddles on fairly calm water. I have not loaded this one yet with anything more than lunch and the usual safety gear. I weigh about 175 which keeps both stern and bow in the water.

I was on the fence between another ‘Kapp and this Q purchased in September. I liked its lesser volume and crisp edged turns. I do ever so slightly “feel” the chines when just rolling the boat under me, but they do not seem to catch on moving water. I find it rolls as well as any other sea kayak.

I have not put this one on the scales, but it is a noticeably lighter than other Valley boats of similar size and vintage. The hull and deck have slight flex under localized pressure. But I do not equate excess weight with strength. The overall fine workmanship and attention to detail is expected from and synonymous with Valley.

I happen to like the look and lines of the Q. The stern does have a noticeable up turn. The stern is loose enough for responsive turns but is not squirrelly. Quartering winds will cause weather cocking that either skeg or edging will counteract. I have noticed that once a turn is committed to, it does take some attention to rapidly straighten or reverse that direction.

I like the low rear deck that allows me to lie flat on without coming out of the seat. This Q has the recent plastic seat pan which fits me well without additional padding. I did remove the typical VCP back band and replace it with a 3inch wide, shaped pillar. Likewise I have put foam on the stock position front bulkhead.

I need and like the keyhole cockpit which allows a cowboy entry and exit with my long legs and feet. Also my knees are free to pump up and down when my feet are centered on the bulkhead. This permits good torso rotation for me. When the going gets rough, I just hook me knees, leaving me slightly splayed. I did like the more secure fit to my legs better on the Nordkapp. Its front deck and coaming are a little taller.

It is not perfect. No boat is. But it suits me.

Q-Boat/Anas acuta/NDK Greenlander
I agree that the Q boat is unattractive, Its ugliness accentuated when considered in relation to the Anas acuta , as one is inclined to do. (If the the Anas is not the prettiest composite boat ever made, and I think it is it is on the short list). The Q-boat looks ill-proportioned, with a giant front deck and bow way out of proportion to the Anas-like back deck. It feels a bit silly to carry on about this but there is a point where aesthetics is an integral part of paddling.

My understanding is that, in creating an “HV Anas acuta”, they left the rear mostly alone, flattened out the rocker and added a ton of volume in the front, and added length. (I think the Q is 17’11”, the AA is 17’2”). This would result in a boat tall on directional control, gear carrying capacity , and speed, so different from the AA as to make comparisons irrelevant. Its true counterpart is the NDK Greenlander, and in this regard I would definitely opt for the Greenlander. On three occasions since September I have been out in groups of strong paddlers, and each time a Greenlander Pro has stood out in the crowd. This, of course, has more to do with the skill of the three paddlers, but my impression has been that in the hands of a skilled paddler, the NDK Greenlander is a boat of the highest order.

I am sure the Q boat is a fine boat. Al boats have their limitations. My lack of interest started with the aesthetics and was confirmed by my trial in the boat. did the lack of visual appeal cloud my impressions of the boat? probably.

Just not for me. I agree wholeheartedly that the greenlander (not necessarily the greenlander pro) (I like ocean cockpits) is a far nicer looking boat.

Anybody see the wooden OI on Ebay?


its like you are talking about one of
my kids and calling them ugly, such pain your bring me!

concerning the look, actually the disparity of heights of the fordeck and the aftdeck on the Q, measure the height of the deck at your feet and at the cockpit coming of the foredeck, then compare that height with other kayaks…after that you will see that the cockpit is not as large as one might guess, granted the aftdeck is so low it is the disparity of the two in profile that creates the illusion that one is so much bigger than the other…I promise you cant cross your legs indian style in the Q.

I guess
or at least hope that they are trying for “form follows function”?