Wilderness Systems Tempest 170 v. Tsunami 165

[Shadepine]

Tempest 170 v. Tsunami 165

So yesterday I got a great deal on a Wilderness Systems Tempest 170 (plastic) in great condition. I took it for a 4-mile paddle last night and thought I’d share my first impressions.

I’ve owned and paddled a Tsunami 165 for more than a decade. I’ve paddled hundreds of miles in the Tsunami so am intimately familiar with it. It’s been a great boat and I’ve been happy with it. I wanted a second boat and was curious to get something a bit more high-performance.

The difference between these two boats is IMO marginal. Anyone who thinks they are night and day is grossly exaggerating. I’ve often heard people disparage the Tsunamis as being a “pig” of a boat, which is just flat-out wrong. I can easily paddle 4.5mph in the Tsunami even when loaded with 35lbs of gear.

The width of these boats is not that different: 22" for the Tempest, 23.75" for the Tsunami. I’m 5’10" and weigh 215lbs, and the fit for me in the Tempest is snug but comfortable. I definitely have more room in the Tsunami (both around the hips and for my legs), but I didn’t feel cramped in the Tempest and still had plenty of foot room.

The Tempest is tippier—I noticed this when I first got into the boat. Lower initial stability…but the secondary stability is excellent: once leaned over, the Tempest just sits there comfortably (and doesn’t keep going til you’re upside-down). The Tsunami’s initial stability is much better. Once I started paddling, I quickly got comfortable with the Tempest and didn’t feel its tippiness at all.

The other obvious difference for me with the Tempest was the lack of a rudder. (The Tsunami has a rudder.) As with so many other things, there are a lot of knee-jerk opinions about rudders versus skegs. Yes, there are some good arguments against rudders (the wind catches them, it’s hard to do a cowboy-style re-entry from the stern, etc.)…but there is one HUGE benefit to a rudder: you can focus 100% of your energy into paddling forward and not expend calories with leaning and steering strokes.

I’m a former whitewater slalom racer so leaning and turning strokes are a non-issue for me…but I can say without hesitation: on the same 4-mile loop I’ve done hundreds of times in my Tsunami, I expended more energy in the Tempest just steering—energy that would have been used exclusively for moving forward in my Tsunami. IMO this additional energy expense tends to reduce any speed advantage the Tempest has over the Tsunami. My average speed on this loop in the Tsunami is 4.6mph…and in the tempest it was 4.8mph. Faster, but not hugely faster. (And that included paddling upwind into 2-3 foot waves for half the loop.) Also, at 215lbs I’m a bit “heavier” in the Tempest (max capacity of 325lbs) than I am in the Tsunami (max capacity of 350lbs). So again, this may reduce the Tempest’s speed advantage a bit.

I experimented with paddling with the skeg up and down, and it definitely helps! The Tempest tracks pretty well without the skeg…but I quickly decided I wanted the skeg deployed all the time (because it reduced the need for steering strokes and leans). Many paddlers seem to think that there is something superior to doing steering strokes and leans; I disagree—all they do is detract from your forward speed and endurance. Yes, it’s important to know how to do steering strokes and leans…but that doesn’t mean you should do them all the time.

None of this is to knock the Tempest; I really enjoyed paddling it! And overall, just paddling forward, it felt very similar to (if not identical) to paddling my Tsunami. And yes, I’m sure the more I paddle it, the more the steering strokes and leans will become second-nature (but they’ll still use more energy than only paddling forward with a rudder for steering).

Bottom line is that the Tempest 170 and Tsunami 165 are both very good, highly-capable kayaks. I don’t think anyone could go wrong with either of them. And if your goal is to do long-distance, expedition-style kayaking, it would be a mistake to think the Tsunami isn’t capable of that. It absolutely is! (On a side note, I’d love to paddle a Tsunami 175, but I rarely see or hear about those—it seems like not many were made?) Yes the Tsunami is higher volume and a bit wider, but it’s not a pig at all. Its width and volume are assets.

[Jyak]

@Onski326 will be pleased to hear your report. It’s essentially what he has been asking. For the past few years, I’ve picked my 145 Tsunami, because it’s lighter to transport, and I can track a straight line with it by just edging. I started using the 175 Tsunami this season after a few trips with uncharacteristic wind gusts that gutted my speed to around 3.8 mph. I pulled the 175 out of mothballs because it bridges waves better.

I can now say that 145 works well from flat conditions through winds under 10-15 mph, gusting up to 20 mph. Above that and the speed drops radically by close to .7 mph due to the bow flying and plunging between wave peaks. That’s with 350 lb max cap and my weight of 235 lbs, no spray skirt. Working harder with a spray skirt could mitigate some speed loss, but mostly, the 145 walllows in thevtrough of the passimg wave, mych like the effect of hitting hull speed. The longer 175 will experience the a speed drop from the same effect with wind sustained speeds above 15 mph, gusting to 30 mph, without a spray skirt. Craig and I had no problem sustaining between 4.9 and 5.8 mph for extended periods, and the conditions were mild enough to have little influence on performance.

Your comment about the skeg vs rudder is good info. Although the 145 Tsunami is controllable by edging alone under the favorable conditions mentioned above, it becomes tiresome as conditions worsen. The 175 can tract straight under mild conditions, but the greater rocker makes it fairly unmanageable as conditions increase intensity. As you pointed out, I also reach a cutoff where the rudder is deployed because its easier than fighting for control, whether going with, against, or perpendicular to conditions. @E.T was seeking similar information as @Onski326 about the 170 Tempest. Both manage fairly well, but I believe haven’t hit the potential of the boat.

Agree that the Tsunsmi is no pig. It’s an extremely capable boat and rock stable in most open water. I’ve never used a spray skirt, felt uneasy in waves, or felt the least bit tippy. The only problem with roto-molded plastic is the weight, but they’re nearly indestructible. The seats are excellent, but I had to attach a surgical clamp to the seat strap to keep the seat back from slipping (might retrofit a backband style backrest).

Thanks for the detailed explanation.

[captainkirk]

I have used zip ties in my feel free Aventura to keep the seat from slipping. Not elegant, but effective.

[Jyak]

I plan to stitch it but the stainless steel clamp works and I’m too lazy to get the needle and thread. Good tip for others who have a problem.

[Onski326]

Very good info! Thank you! I haven’t been on the water much lately due to work but was able to get out yesterday finally.
I had looked at the Tsunami but the reviews I’d read when deciding between it and the Tempest all mentioned the same thing you did, “pig” or “tank” came up frequently whereas the Tempest was always revered for it’s speed or being “much quicker”. That’s why I ended up with the Tempest. And your take on the Tempest is 100% spot on. But the deeper I dive into the Tsunami world, the more I’m finding similar results to yours, that it’s really not that much different at all. Roomier with better initial stability, basically exactly what you said. A few comparisons yielded the same results where the Tempest was a touch quicker but only by maybe a few tenths mph.
The one difference, as you mentioned, the great rudder/skeg debate. lol. I’ve had rudders on my stuff before and enjoy them. Never really thought about ‘losing speed’ using one until I did some testing and seemed I did go slower with the rudder deployed than without it. That was interesting. Like I mentioned, I’d always wanted at Tempest 170 and finally got one and it came with a skeg. Hated it initially. But I didn’t know how to use it. Messed around a LOT with it and have found out how to usefully use it and now I enjoy it. Thought my turning strokes and form are not the best, I’d chose a rudder every time if that were the case, but most of my paddling is pretty straight-line stuff so I’m leaning towards the skeg more and more. That said, if I buy a boat with either, I’m not going to go and change it any. I just picked up a Perception Carolina 14.5 for my son that has a rudder and for him at 10 years old, I think that’ll work better for him to control the boat easier than trying to manage a skeg so it works well in this situation.
I wish I would have tried out a few Tsunami’s before getting my Tempest just so I’d know but since I have my Tempest, I’m almost afraid to test a Tsunami for fear of buyer remorse. lol

[Jyak]

Never regret. The reasons I kept an off line link with you is your intuitive approach. Look at the above review by @Shadepine and compare to @Craig_S comments. We’re in the same range, find roughly the same conclusions. I’m finding interesting comparisons based on weight. When I was 255 lbs, the 175 Tsunami was faster and controllable by edging and paddle strokes. The 145 was a bit harder and it doesn’t have a rudder. After dropping 20 lbs, I fit the 145 weight range better, and I figured out how to control it by edging alone. Very little effort goes into controlling the boat by paddle stroke, except under weather cocking conditions. Even with SE 10-15 mph winds, gusting to 20 mph, I can track with edging alone on both northern or southern course, whether the wind and tide are in sync or opposing.

Here are tracks from the 145 using paddle strokes only without edging to make course corrections

This 20 July 23 track shows near perfect overlap using the rudderless 145. The yellow circle shows an intentional track change. Outgoing, I set course for right of the channel marker, then range on a point until I enter the channel so I can range on a far point. You’ll see the same pattern in all of my charts. The trip back cuts the corners. Deflections from a straight line is wind deviation or strong tide. Results don’t change regardless of whether wind and tides are in sync or in opposition.

Here is the 175 with rudder, under similar conditions:

I gave up using paddle strokes for course correction in the 145. I’m not sure what happened to the handling in the 175, because I have very serious problems edging it sonce I lost 20 lbs. It tracks similar to the used145 when I moved the seat to the rear by 42 mm. It wants to veer hard off course when following waves overtake it. I suspect its a trim issue, or my lower weight requires more edging than I’m comfortable with.

You’re doing fairly well and picking up speed.

[Shadepine]

Good posts @Jyak and @Onski326 - (OP here). I’ve been paddling the Tempest 170 exclusively since buying it a month ago. I’ve paddled it in wide-ranging conditions, from dead-calm to 15-20mph winds from every direction. Now I’m really curious to go back to the Tsunami 165 and see how it feels after being out of it for a month?

One thing I’m still certain of: I expend more energy in the Tempest due to the lack of a rudder (and having to steer with correctional strokes and leans). I know I’m less tired after paddling at the same intensity/distance in the Tsunami. Steering with a rudder is easier, period.

I definitely find the skeg makes a difference in the Tempest; but it still won’t track 100% true without deviation with the skeg fully down; I still have to frequently throw in leans or incorporate a sweep into a stroke. I’ve never paddled a high-end glass boat, so I don’t know if any of those will track like a laser beam (and never deviate) while using the skeg?

And even considering any loss of speed due to the rudder just being in the water (drag), I’m certain I make up for that loss by simply being able to paddle harder without ever having to do correctional strokes or leans. In the Tsunami, it’s 100% pure forward paddling. In the Tempest, I’d say it’s 80-85% pure forward paddling, 15-20% course corrections.

Even while I’ve become very comfortable in the Tempest and have no problem doing and holding leans and correctional strokes…I think I’m just a rudder guy, period. I think I enjoy paddling the Tsunami a bit more. (As a reminder, I’m 5’11" and 212lbs.)

I’ll post again soon with my initial reactions to paddling the Tsunami again after more than a month out of it.

Scott

[Jyak]

Your posts are highly detailed and a great comparison for me, Craig and Onski326 who is building confidence. I learned a lot about the 175 Tsunami from Craig. We were supposed to go out this past weekend and compare the 170 Tempest, the 180 Tempest Pro and the 175 Tsunami, but thecrecrnt hurricane cause some minor cleanup issues. We’re of the same opinion that the 175 Tsunami is at least equal to the 170 Tempest or at least within .1 mph. Many would argue that such a slim margin is negligible. I agee, and that margin could depend on whether you had Wheaties or Luck Charms for breakfast or two cups of coffee. After all, the length is what matters most. I believe width, hull form, v shape, soft chine vs multi-chine makes a differece as far as acceleration, glide, edging, and effort, but they all approach the same limit from the hull speed. The difference between 16.5 and 17.5 is only .2 mph potential.

It’s been several years since I last paddled the 175 Tsunami, but it seems by dropping 20 lbs of body weight (from 255 to 235 lbs), the 175 is now harder for me to control without relying on the rudder. You at 210 lbs are probably better suited to the 165 Tsunami. I know the 145 handles better at my current 235 lbs paddler weight, but once winds get to between 15 and 20 mph with 30 mph gusts, the 145 avg speeds over my test course drop to around 3.8 mph consistently, but I can get 4.2 mph avg speeds in the 175. However, I need the rudder to handle higher winds from any direction.

The primary stability of the entire Tsunami line is amazing. The 145 doesn’t seen to have a secondary tipping point, but the 175 does feek like it could keep going once it reaches an extreme leaning point, but I haven’t exceeded that yet.

My thoughts on the rudder haven’t been etched in stone yet, but you are correct in thinking a passive skeg gives less control than an active rudder. What I dislike about the rudder, at least in the Tsunami, is it lacks smooth rudder control. I don’t mind the stock foot controls, because I don’t use my foot pegs the same way as most paddlers. I can paddle with equal intensity even if my legs are flat of the kayak deck (not on the footpegs or with my legs against the thigh pads). In the 145, I typically use paddle strokes for propulsion only. Tracking and directional control is from edging (feet on pegs and legs against thigh pads as necesssry to help with control). I can track straighter by edging the 145 than the 175 with rudder assist. Having said that, the rudder mount lost it’s bolts on my last trip, so it’s possible my issues were from the rudder parts not being secure.

Thanks for your very detailed and helpful info.

[Doggy_Paddler]

@Shadepine

definitely find the skeg makes a difference in the Tempest; but it still won’t track 100% true without deviation with the skeg fully down

The skeg is meant to be deployed to different degrees depending on the direction of the wind; you don’t always want it fully down. Here’s a brief general explanation:

When paddling into the wind the skeg is not required to maintain direction (i.e. skeg should be completely up), when paddling with the wind on the front quarter have it a quarter down (i.e. diagonally across the wind), when paddling across the wind it is halfway down, when paddling with wind on the rear quarter it is three-quarters down, and when paddling downwind the skeg is fully down. This is only a general guide you need to experiment as trim and kayak design will have an effect

[Shadepine]

@Jyak Agree with all your comments about the Tsunamis. I’ve been thinking I’d like to have a Tsunami 175 just for the higher load capacity and thinking maybe it would be a bit faster if I’m lower (percentage-wise) in the boat’s capacity range. But I might be wrong? I’ve found the differences between the Tsunami 165 and my Tempest 170 are really marginal (and like you said, might just come down to how energetic you’re feeling on a given day).

@Doggy_Paddler Thanks for the rundown on when to use different degrees of skeg. I’ll try that out…though (as I’ve posted in a few other threads) I tend to disagree with the general sea kayaking philosophy of only using the skeg when you have to (or using it at any degree but 100%).

I can’t back it up with actual data (though I should try at some point)…but I’m pretty confident that all other things being equal, you’ll burn more calories paddling without a skeg (or even with one) than you will in a boat with a rudder, due to the added energy required to do correctional leans and strokes. For me, any energy expended on correctional moves (no matter how good you are at them) is energy that could have been used for paddling forward…and over long distances this makes a difference.

I know I’m probably “paddling against the tide” on that…but I believe rudders get an unreasonably bad rap in the sea kayaking community.

I should add that if there are kayaks (higher-end glass kayaks) that track like a laser beam, making the use of a skeg pointless, then absolutely—rudders aren’t needed. Alas, my plastic boats don’t track that well.

[Jyak]

I forgot to mention the skeg. I read several reviews about Zephyrs that had a lot of play in the skeg. One person installed plastic washers to eliminate the play. That could be an issue.

[Doggy_Paddler]

@Shadepine

should add that if there are kayaks (higher-end glass kayaks) that track like a laser beam, making the use of a skeg pointless

High end kayaks do not necessarily track well. Tracking is usually in inverse proportion to playfulness, or the ability to maneuver the kayak easily, and for some applications people will prefer that and it can be safer. You want to go straight fast, and not spend any extra energy in having to do correcting strokes, but many people have different goals. I will often use my skeg when I’m having trouble keeping it going the direction I want to in windy conditions, especially if I’m tired. But that being said, I l prefer the feel of the kayak when the skeg is not deployed, because it moves more freely on the water. So, what you use the skeg for or whether you use it at all probably depends a lot upon what your preferences and goals are.

[Shadepine]

Good point Doggy_Paddler—I agree! And I do notice what you mentioned about the boat feeling more free with the skeg up. It definitely feels more like it’s on rails with the skeg down. But when I want to paddle for miles across long distances, being on rails is what I want and enjoy.

[Doggy_Paddler]

Luckily there are many kinds of kayaks to suit individual paddlers’ preferences!