The Tsunamis have proven well in all…
– Last Updated: Jan-31-08 11:58 AM EST –
"The Tsunamis have proven well in all the same conditions..." -Flatpick
lemme see
so as far as I can see, the tsunami175 will handle all the same conditions but is just a little less responsive I’m geussing higher inital stability. how about secondary stability?
higher volume. to what degree would the diference in perfomace be? responsiveness or whatever. also can you give me some pro’s and or cons comparing a rudder system to a drop down skeg.
thanks for your time
all of this information will really help me with choosing a yak.
cheers.
I feel
like I’m chasing my tail.
steve
today on springer transitional vs perfor
hi I tried to ask really specific questions,
in regards to these two boats.
transitional performance whatever.
I’m more interested in technical info than personal opinion in regards to transitional vs performance.I don’t care if it is a transitional boat. It wont matter what anybody calls the kayak when I’m in the middle of nowhere in rough seas. I should have specified that the qestion was for steve.
thanks.
I’ve
done plenty of rolling practice and paddled in lots of rough water(but little breaking surf) I had a problem initially with water in the rear hatch/hold which I fixed by tightening the nut on the skeg and by ensuring a proper seal on the top of the hatch cover—use the heel of my palm to pound around the edge of the cover to make sure it fits over the lip of the hatch all the way around and then put the bungee around it. If I always do that I have no problems with water.
I think the point is they are different
but the Tsunami is capable.
Wilderness Systems logic makes since to me. The ‘Rec’ market is huge right now, but you have people who might be ready to move on to a different type of kayak but don’t want a full blown sea kayak. So they see the name transitional touring and think that is perfect for me. In my experience a lot of people look for a kayak that is good on flat water but also open ocean - something that will allow them to transition easily between the two. A full blown sea kayak might be too much for them to handle (in their minds) so the Transitional Touring label creates and fills a market niche.
Transitional Touring label fills a niche
– Last Updated: Jan-31-08 11:55 AM EST –
Yes. There have been 'transition' boats around for a long time. They are wanted by many moving from rec boats, but not yet ready to go to a full sea kayak. I think that is their design intent. I think they are therfore 'optimal' for that market segment and use.
Someone who has only paddled at 26+ inch wide rec boat is likely to be made uncomfortable in a 19-21.5" wide sea kayak. This is where boats such as the Tsunami come into play. They are 'optimal' for paddlers venturing into somewhat bigger waters than before and covering greater distances.
Funny, I asked this question
to a couple of my fellow instructors only about a week ago. The only real clarification I received was that the Tsunami was developed for a larger paddling group. I assume, which could be entirely incorrect that the tsunami is designed for the new paddler as well as being more than capable in the hands of we’ll say a more advanced paddler. But couldn’t the same be said about ALOT of the boats on the market?
Also, the Tsunami line extends into the shorter lengths of ‘touring’ kayaking, while the tempest, I beleive starts at a sixteen?
I myself have only had opportunities to paddle the Tsunami on flatwater. Each time I decide totake it out to try it I cant find any ‘conditions’ other than flat. However, during the symposium this past summer, during one of our instructors courses, one of my fellow students did use a tsunami 165RM and had just spent a week in Tofino with it. He loved it. And I’ll be the first to tell you, he handled it just fine, during rolling sessions, edging, bracing and rescues.
I just realized I’ve really added nothing to this conversation 
James
Mea Maxima Culpa
More
– Last Updated: Jan-31-08 2:47 PM EST –
"I'm afraid for my money, I'd rather a Tempest for conditions than a Tsunami, but I guess I'm just a fool or snob ;-)"
It's certainly just fine for people to prefer one boat over another. Let's not get too hung up on the "transitional" label and discuss real and specific reasons a boat has (or doesn't have) desireable characteristics for a particular purpose.
It would appear that the Tsunami 17.5 would be much better choice for someone heavy/large than the Tempest 17. (I don't mean that the boat is only for such a person.) If that is the case, clearly, the Tempest isn't "optimal" (no boat is "optimal" for all persons).
You need to try boats
All of the boats you listed are good boats.
You need to try them out and then come back with questions.
Overlap
– Last Updated: Jan-31-08 2:35 PM EST –
There's a fair amount of overlap in performance between the similar-sized Tsunami and the Tempest.
The "transitional" label implies that there is -more- of a difference than there actually is.
There are various general properties of boats.
1) Hull shape.
2) Length.
3) Cockpit size.
4) The seat.
5) Foredeck volume (where your thighs are).
6) Construction/outfitting.
If the Tsunami is "transitional", it's transitional because of 3, 4, and 5, and maybe (for the shorter ones) 2.
Try them
– Last Updated: Jan-31-08 2:49 PM EST –
Try them. You need to have some idea of the properties (eg, manueverable or strong tracking) YOU want in a boat.
All of the boats you mentioned are good boats.
The Tsunami 17.5 would certainly be a better choice than the Tempest for some one heavy or larger.
At your size, the choice between the two would be more preference.
It looks like the Tsunami has more volume than you need. (That may also be the case for the Boreal you mentioned.)
The problem with volume is that there is more windage if you aren't loading it with a lot of weight (eg, during day trips).
Seems about right to me
What you said makes sense to me. (And you were not hung up on the “transitional” word.)
I was going to say it if you didn’t
tsunami
has a different hull shape also.
Yes, it’s different
– Last Updated: Jan-31-08 6:38 PM EST –
"has a different hull shape also"
Yes, of course, it's different.
Still, it's not clear to me that the Tsunami hull is overly "transitional".
For example, it's not clear that the hull is any more stable than a NDK Explorer (which no one conciders a "transitional" sea kayak).
There is a fairly wide range of stabilities in non-transitional sea kayak hulls. It doesn't seem that the Tsunami is out of this range.
My point is that there isn't much guidance in the term "transitional".
Anyway, there really is not much value is asking what boat is the "best".
Ply wood lid
– Last Updated: Jan-31-08 8:06 PM EST –
works well and I just layed up the new lid with flange -layer of 6oz glass over ply, 4 layers for flange. Going with bolted straps as I thought it may put more downward pressure on the very sides of the rubber lid where water has the best chance of getting in.
Not the best to drill more holes in the boat but it'll be 'peace of mind' in the surfy stuff. Could buy a composite T with the kajak sport hatches but I ain't got the spare dough.
Here's a link to a pic of the still curring lid. The wood blocks create a channel for guiding the straps.
http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/2704193670102205750Jyiyhb
Tony
aha!
I knew someone would figure it out.
'no boat is “optimal” for all persons’
Agreed.
As with everything else - it depends 