Why have kayaks gone stubby?

Search “best all around kayak” or anything similar and many of the sponsored links at the top of the page will be for models from Pelican, Lifetime and other stubby big box options. People who are new to the sport use search terms like these and Google’s algorithms - not to mention their paying advertisers - know it. How many first-time buyers are likely to go with the Trailblazer 100 (probably available around the corner) and how many will go with the Pungo that is more difficult to locate and may have to be ordered?

Capture

The answer is simple. It’s what people want and what they buy. It has nothing to do with acquiring expertice in strapping down a boat. I liked my first kayak. A 9 ft $239, 40 lb Perception Swifty. It took up very little storage space, fit in the bed of my pick up truck without the need for any tie downs. It’s easy to carry and to climb in and out; it’s efficient to paddle and manuevers well. It served my needs until I tried to go faster. With a hull speed limit of 4.7 mph, the rear deck would bury under water nearly up to the cockpit coaming. The greater problem was that winds around 10 mph would generate waves large enough that the bow would rise then plunge. That would send cascades of water into the cockpit, unless paddle strokes were carefully timed and forward progress limited to about .5 mph.

Many kayakers have no desire to improve skills but rather prefer to explore shorelines and enjoy a lazy day on the water. They go out just to float. I can’t count the times my comments about improving paddling skills ended with the predominant replies of “speed isn’t everything,” or “I like to explore.”

That’s what stubby boats are designed for, and that’s why they’re popular. I enjoyed that stubby boat and will never sell it, but I did upgrade to a 12 ft rec boat, then a 28 inch wide 140 Pungo because I wanted speed and feared a tippy closed cockpit. It had the speed and could bridge waves better, but the Pungo wasn’t fully suited for open water. I did make several open water, cross bay trips of 21.5 miles in the Pungo (added a forward bulkhead). I wanted to explore further, so I tried a 125 Tsunami and found the 26 inch width just as stable as the Pungo but more controlable. The 145 Tsunami at 24.5 inch wide proved to be just as stable, faster and better in waves. The 175 Tsunami again proved better in every way, but the 20 additional lbs and the length requires a ladder rack to transport. I get a greater workout carrying it than from paddling it. My only regret is that I didn’t buy the lighter model, but those fiberglass models lacked foot room and were not as indestructable as the roto molded plastic. The tippier high performance brands were intentionally avoided, and I’ve yet regretted it.

Give people the respect, and honor their decision to select a kayak that meets the needs each pursues. If anyone wants a high performance boat and can’t find a new version, build one. If you don’t want to build one, buy a used boat.

I believe Wilderness Systems went the wrong direction by redesigning the 145 Tsunami that was 24.5 wide and the 140 Tsunami in the 24 inches width. Both current models are now 25.5 inches wide. I know why they did it - to increase load capacity. I voiced my objection to the service rep who recited the corporate line. So be it. I since bought two used older model 145 Tsunamis and one older model used 140 Tsunami. The 140 and one of the 145s have rudders, which are in my mind unnecessary and more hinderance than asset, so I bought new foot braces and will replace them.

Product is still plentiful. Boats are for sale every day.

2 Likes

Do you know what year they changed them?

Short might be a good thing. I’m on my way out to bring long boats in to shelter from Debbie. Of course, my “stubby” is 14 ft. You may start with just a kayak, but you develop to the boat that suits your needs and desires.

I believe the change occurred in the 2022 model year. I understand why they may have changed the dimensions, but it doesn’t stsnd out in specifications.

The 145 model I bought mid-2000 time frame and the 140 model that my sister bought had the same spec dimensions until around 2022, but they dropped the max cap load rating of thec140 from 325 lbs to 300 lbs. (Without changes to dimensions). The mid-2000 specs were:

145: 14’6" long, 24.5" wide, 350 lb max cap, 16" deck.
140: 14’0" long, 24.0" wide, 325 lb max cap, 15" deck.

I downloaded the 2015 pdf and saw a wide range of kayak models, including the Focus models, Tempests, Zephyrs, and Tsunami Pro versions. Reviews show the focus as a criss between the rock solid Pungo rec line and the same features that morphed into an entry level sea kayak in the Tsunami line. The focus is a crossover between the Tsunami and the Tempest. The Focus features a steamlined width, less rocker than the Tempest, and a shallow v-hull with a rounded chine. The advantage is improved tracking and speed in flat conditions, but less controlability in choppy conditions. It is a beginners boat that requires advanced skills, so it apparently died unmissed.

Manufacturers list specs that I would hope reflect actual dimensions and capacities. Note that the 140 model for 2015 year show a 300 lb max cap, yet the length and width had not changed. Yet a Focus model shows a 15’ by 23.5" model with a 325 lb max cap. I wonder if the marketing manipulated numbers up or down to influence sales. The 2015 model year showed an explosion of product options including some 13.5 foot versions, narrower models and different build material.

Since 2015, the line has been stripped out. The 140 Pungo was an incredibly versitile recreational boat. Its now gone.

What puzzles me is how they essentially erased the differences and made the 145 and 140 the same width but a shorter length. My sister didn’t like my 145 Tsunami at 24.5" wide, because the deck and coaming interferred with her paddling. The reduced dimensions of the 140 matched her perfectly (she’s about 145 lbs). So they changed the width, creating two models of the same width, with one being handicapped by being 6 inches shorter. The added width shows it increases the max load capacity, rated at 325 lbs, but that is the same rating of the mid-2000 model. Why? It would have made more sense to increase the 145 to 15 feet and keep the 24.5 width, and incease the 140 to 14.5 feet and keep the width at 24 inches. That might sound like spliting hairs, but it would have improved the versatility and weight range without impacting on usability. Since I actually overloaded the 145, the length would improve the max capacity sliightly without impacting padfdle clearance. The recommendation is based on the 175 at 24 inches having equivalent stability with better paddling clearance, more footroom, and greater speed, especially in choppy conditions. Based on my paddling experience, I know where compromises could be made to improve handling without compromising load capacity. The boat would benefit all around from adding length, and wouldn’t suffer from reduced width, considering how the 175 model at 24 inches wide is designed for large paddlers (my guess is a person at 6’3" and 285 lbs with suze 13 shoes would be at home in it. The additional 1.5 inch width on the 140 and 145 technically adds nothing according to the max capacity (although it must incease capacity; specs just don’t show it), but the added width will make the paddling experience harder.

@Craig_S bought a 25.5 inch wide new model 145 Tsunami for his son. I haven’t had the opportunity to compare it to my 24.5 inch model. Craig speaks favorably about the wider version, so I wonder if the load water line remains similar, while the gunnels alone increased in width to keep the cockpit drier.

The Wilderness Systems Pungo and Tsunsmi line use the same multi-chine hull profile. The 28 inch wide Pungo through the 21 inch wide 120 Tsunami SP have the same incredible primary stability that I consider ideal for flat through moderate choppy conditions.

For anyone needing a boat for a juvenile paddlers, look for a used 135 Tsunami at 13’6" long by 23" wide with a max capacity of 275 lbs. In comparison, the 125 Tsunami is 12’9" by 26" wide with around a 300 lb max capacity. The drawback again is the width that interferes with padfling comfort of a small paddler. The 135 Tsunami is a perfect transition boat for young paddlers. The 120 Tsunami SP at 21" wide only has a max capacity of 180 lbs.





1 Like

I mostly use a “stubby fat plastic boats from China” because it works for me and my arthritic joints. My first boat was an Eddyline Sandpiper, and I loved it enough to replace it with the same when the hull started to fail. I also acquired a Carolina 14; I no longer have the flexibility to get into it, and a wet exit is the only way out. Nice boat, but… The second Sandpiper was stolen off the roof of my car; I went out and spent $240 on a Pelican. I can get in and out, use it mostly to meander around the edges of things, get out at least once a week solo or with a group. I also bought a drop-stitch inflatable; it’s OK, but WORK to paddle on open water with wind and waves. So, the Pelican is usually what I choose, which keeps me off some of the open coastal waters I used to enjoy - so maybe not a forever boat. Time will tell.

1 Like

My favorite type of kayak for my aging, arthritic body is a SOT. Easy on and off. I have a sit inside (Pungo 140) that is a great boat once I’m in it but I need help getting in and out. I’ve used the roll over to get out but I don’t like it.
I’ve been looking at stubbies but based on a sample of one I will never be satisfied by a short boat.

2 Likes

Sorry about your stolen Sandpiper #2. What a downer. :angry:
I still have a couple of Eddylines in my herd, including a Sandpiper, so I’m curious curious to know more about the hull of #1 starting to fail. What signs of failure were you seeing … is there something I should be watching especially closely?

1 Like

Sandpiper #1 was inherited from a friend who had used it long and well; it must have been an early one, being all white. The cockpit coaming was cracked; the bottom of the hull was crazed; I had already patched the bottom where it was starting to wear through at the stern. It spent a lot of time on the roof of the car, both before I owned it (traveling from New England south) and after (traveling from New England to the Canadian Maritimes) so had a lot of sun exposure. During the season it was out a few times a week, so was very well used, bounced off gravel, etc. And loved.

2 Likes

When I first met you (2007, OMG, so long ago!), you were paddling a PBW RapidFire. I think PBW makes some longer canoes now that they didn’t have back then.

And Hornbeck now has New Trick 14, and New Trick 15.

Have you ruled out another ultralight pack canoe?

Thank You!

1 Like

I’m done with canoes and paddling is looking kind of iffy. That may be due more to this really hot weather.
I once again am working on the Stellar to make it more personally friendly.

@willowleaf you sort of have to compare apples to apples more or less.

Aspire 105 - 10.5 foot 48lbs. capacity 400lobs.
Tempest 170 - 17.0 ft - 57lbs. capacity 325 lbs
Tsunami 175 - 17.5ft - 68lbs capacity 400lbs.

I throw these three out as they are what I have in my fleet.

and for completeness my Tempest 180 Pro - 18.0 Ft - 55lb Capacity 400lb

for completeness I’ll use the Aspire 105 and the Tempest 180 for comparison as their weight is quite similar just the length differs.

In hoisting over the shoulder and carrying the Aspire is easier hands down, the short length mean your are not dealing with newtons 1st law. so turning makes the shorter boat less unwieldy while being solo carried.

In lifting onto the car (Jerk and press, onto a Subaru cross-trek.) again the length of the boat matters here greatly. if your press is just slightly uneven the nose or the ass of the longer boat gets moving out of sync inertia takes over and it can be a pain to correct, her the shorter boat is again easier to jerk and press onto the roof rack.

Lifting onto car in a two step fashion, Lift the nose up and slide into place this is the only way the longer boat proves superior since the 10ft boat is realistically too short to load in this method.

Again carrying and portaging, the shorter boat is easier too since you are basically carrying at the cockpit the longer length of a longer boat provides a longer fulcrum making controlling the nose harder. The smaller boat is easier here too.

This is all from personal experience. in hauling all of these boats.

Even the Tsunami 145, is easier to handle than my 175, or the tempest 170 though nearly the same weight, the shorter length of it makes pressing it up, or toting it about easier than the longer boat. It’s just a fact of physics.

I very seldom lift the entire boat in one motion to get it on top of the car. Simply tilting it while keeping the center of mass waist-high is effortless, so that one end rises and the other end gets closer to the ground. Once one end of the boat is “up”, sliding the boat as if pushing it up a ramp is simple. But I’ve made sure that all my roof racks over the years were conducive to this method (even loading something big and bulky like an aluminum Jon boat onto a high roof, with rack modifications to make this do-able from either the rear or the side of the car, but of course in that case I start with the boat carried on my shoulders, the same as I do with a canoe). I see it as a case of “necessity is the mother of invention”, and I like to tinker and build stuff anyway. Still, with a kayak on cradles or J-hooks there’s really no tinkering needed to make this style of loading work. It’s just a case of using a lifting method which is different from the obvious.

I see that you do use the process of lifting one end of the boat and sliding it up onto the roof if the boat is longer, which makes me wonder about all this talk of long boats being more difficult if things get out of synch when lifting in one motion. And there are various ways to make it perfectly do-able to slide a 10’ foot boat onto a roof in the same manner: a loading bar, a bath mat on the rear roof corner (or on the trunk, for a sedan), or build your own connecting bars running from front to rear on each side and slide the boat up from one side of the car. And I used to have a rack setup where I could add a temporary cross bar which was positioned on an extender farther toward the rear than the rear “main” cross bar. it was clipped on just for loading/unloading and then removed.

You say come North. Where are you ?

A major “apples to oranges” aspect of my personal boat loading is that only 2 of the dozen in the current fleet are over 50 pounds (I only use those when I have help to load on the rack, or I carry them on the trailer or slide into the back of the box truck camper). And 7 of them are under 40 lbs.

12’ Pakboat Puffin 24 lbs
12’ Valley Cliffhanger 58 lbs
13.5’ Pakboat Quest 135 27 lbs
13’ 8” Curtis Lady Bug canoe 32 lbs
14’ Pakboat Swifts (2) 28 lbs each
15’ Venture Easky 45 lbs
15’ 7” Feathercraft Wisper 37 lbs
16’ Perception Avatar 50 lbs
16’ Feathercraft Java 32 lbs
17’ 10” Greenland SOF 31 lbs
17’ 11” Northwest Discover 57 lbs

For all but the heaviest boats I can carry them canoe portage style, upside down with my head in the cockpit (usually with a PFD as a cushion) and grasping both sides of the coaming so the boat is high enough that I can just slightly tilt and angle the bow from the side of the car onto the front rack bar and then roll it slightly away from me as I shift the force to the stern and pivot and slide that onto the rear bar.

Huh, I just noticed from compiling my current fleet list above that I have 2 each of 12’, 13’, 14’, 15’, 16’ and 17’ boats. That was not intentional (I tend to adopt random “strays”). Also that the lightest and heaviest ones are both 12 footers.

1 Like

See you on the water,
Marshall Seddon
The River Connection, Inc.
9 W. Market St.
Hyde Park, NY. 12538
845-229-0595 main
845-242-4731 mobile
Main: [www.the-river-connection.com]
Store: [www.the-river-connection.us]
Email: marshall@the-river-connection.com
Facebook: [The River Connection, Inc. | Hyde Park NY]
Instagram: Instagram.com/marshall.seddon

It’s funny, I wonder if those boats actually did the reverse for me. I was around those boats all my life and never saw the appeal of kayaking until I got in a long skinny fast glass boat and cut through the water.

1 Like

I wasn’t as intrigued by fast boats so much as making a boat go fast.

1 Like

I’m not that ambitious or studious, just seeking cheap thrills. :wink:

1 Like