Wilderness Systems Tsunami 165/175 being made again?!?!

Jyak · May 15, 2025, 1:33am

My last post was in preparation while you had already posted you reply. You already paddle at a high rate. It’s ironic how you say you don’t try to go fast. Not every paddler can push a 17 ft boat ti the hull limit.

I agree with your approach, and shadepine’s remark, primarily because the water can be a dangerous place if the paddler exceeds the skill set for the environment. You have nore than enough power, control, speed, technical skills, local knowledge. and worldly wisdom to carry you through.

What troubles me is the novice who pushes the envelope of his or her skill set while venturing into more challenging circumstances, without showing an interest to enhance the skill set.

That’s a personal choice. All one can do is offer advice.

Craig_S · May 15, 2025, 4:26pm

Actually no, but maybe yes it all depends on how fast you want to turn.

I have a tempest 180 pro and a tsunami 175 (soon to have the pro model.) both boats are within 0.1 Mph of each other based on hull speed so close enough to each other for government work.

So if I ignore wind conditions and relate testing on calm still days as in wind other factors come to play.

The tempest is a faster boat only slightly in straight line, but is much faster in the turn (provided I pull the skeg.) She will out turn the Tsunami without using the rudder.

So what do I mean by that.

With the Tsunami just edging, to initiate a turn the boat will do a 180 in about 17-20 boat lengths. so toe explain from were I initiate the turn to the right I will be 17-18 boat lengths further right by the time I am going in the opposite direction. this is all without using any strokes to initiate a turn (J or Sweep stroke.) There is some speed bleed but much less than using the rudder.

Conversely the Tempest 180 on edge makes that same directional turn in about 10-12 boat lengths. Again there is some speed bleed here as well but both boats seem to bleed the same amount of speed. or near enough so.

This isn’t I suppose really a call out to Skeg v. Rudder, but more a call out to Hard Chine V. Soft Chine.

Most times In less windy conditions I get both boats going straight just by minor weight shift either left or right in the cockpit that keeps the boat going straight. or rather where I want it to go.

The only time I use a turning stroke or rudder is when I need to lessen the turn radius. For racing an turning about the pylons I don’t bother doing this I just aim my course so I’m offset to the pylon by the necessary boat lenghts as I’m making my approach, so that when I begin my edge turn I’m going in the direction i need to be by the end around the pylon. I do this to bleed off the minimum amount of speed though it comes at the cost of traveling slightly farther than any one who tries to make the tightest turn around the pylon.

What I found is that the rudder costs me about 1 mph when deployed, where as the skeg if I need it costs me about 0.2 mph so in either boat unless conditions call for it I’ll try to use neither.

However (and I wish I still had my data that was lost in my phone switch, stupid IT department.) so bear with me on this as the numbers may be off a bit but doing from memory and all. The tempest in calm conditions the max speed I can hit over a 3 mile run (no turns.) is 6.2 mph. The Tsunami on the other hand the max speed is 5.8 mph, but if we add in wind where it’s kicking up 12" chop the Tsunami drops to 5.4 mph and the tempest drops to 5.4 mph as well. (same day same conditions, of quartering chop)

This greater effect I attribute to the soft chine of the Tempest.

But to your point you’re not going to expend more energy trying to maintain speed if you are edging right

no as to conditions when they deteriorate further the the 1mph impact of the rudder isn’t going to really matter one whit, and edging is no longer sufficient a rudder is probably then more energy efficient. as you then only need to concentrate on thrust strokes there’s only so much a skeg can do also over longer distances the impact of the rudder becomes less evident especially in big water.

but for most inland conditions I stand by my observations. .

@Jyak this might help you out to better understand my stroke, I just realized this myself while reading all the posts here. Think of it as a Canoe Oar Stroke but with a double bladed Oar. My catch and follow through are very much like you would make when paddling a canoe, as opposed to a traditional Kayak Stroke. I guess I adopted this form after transitioning from WW Canoe, to WW Kayak, I had by that time already developed the canoe stroke so giving me a kayak and paddle there’s no way you can make this stroke without a 60deg feather.

really the only thing to talk about here is stress to the wrist. the bent shaft allows for the mechanics of the wrist to be in a neutral position through the entirety of the paddle stroke relieving strain on the wrists. Other than that There’s not a heap of the difference I can tell except that they’re going to soak you for more money for your comfort.

And I do apologize I’ve probably explained this all poorly, I’ll bring the tempest and the tsunami one day and let John see the technique for turning I use maybe he can wordsmith it better than I can.

Jyak · May 15, 2025, 6:03pm

Not an issue for me about TMI. I learned to transition between speed reading, read for content, and re-reading at a later time. I can appreciate paddlers who glaze over on the detail, but it serves as a great review and gives insight into how features affect performance. I always prefer to make decisions rather than have someone decide for me. Our discussions made me realize that I don’t need to sacrifice stability for speed. Under the typical conditions I face, the Tsunami is more than adequate and close enough to the Tempest that I don’t to have to compromise.

@Shadepine touched on weight and handling. When I dropped 30 lbs, I noticed how the change improved handling in the 145 Tsunami (which I overloaded), by making edging more effective. With the 175 Tsunami (which was in my weight class) edging seemed slightly less effective.

I’m not practiced on turns, since most of my course changes are eithrr long 90° turns or a reverse in direction. Consequently, I never had a need to practice turns, but rather than just edging, wouldn’t it be a better strategy to use a braced turn with a reverse stroke, or are you trying to maintain momentum.

I understand your paddle stroke and the cycle, it’s just hard to actually follow the details.

Craig_S · May 15, 2025, 7:31pm

It’s energy management - It takes less energy to maintain speed than to decelerate that much making a turn then accelerate back to speed. For racing you want to avoid as much as possible anything that actually slows you down. if you leisurely paddling do what you want it doesn’t matter since you;re not on the clock.

but it all boils down to energy management.

I won the 15 miler against many other in better faster boats, mostly because of three things.

I’m damn good at surfing.
I was better conditioned and had more endurance than my competitors.
I only used the rudder for sudden abrupt course changes (Turning into the wake of the Maersk Madrid)

Those things churn up a 3m wake.

so where everyone else was hugging the shore (1/2 the length of your boat the bottom of the river) causes a drag on your boat stay in the deep.

I stayed in the channel dodging container ships, and surfing the 3ft wind blown swells and you can surf them for a good long way. I also lucked out as the period between swells was about 2 boat lengths, so the slog on the backside of the trough was pretty short before you could catch the next one.

so i won the 15 miler with 30 minutes to spare on the runner up.

It was still a slog, but I did it and showed the Gucci owners having the best boat isn’t necessarily the answer.

Jyak · May 15, 2025, 11:32pm

That was my assumption, because climbing back to speed takes more energy. It’s harder to stay on glide at 50 spm than at 72 to 80 spm. Even when it seems favorable to harness a speed boost from following waves, it saps anerobic energy to pursue a passing peak and wallow in the trough. It simply takes more anerobic power to “chase” a peak than it is to maintain momentum to accelerate while being lifted by the next wave. Does it make sense to walk in the direction of your destination or just wait at the bus stop for the bus and save your energy for the walk from between the drop off and your desination.

The reason is simply a matter or the energy output, speed gain, and the duration of assist. Once the peak passes, its better to just wallow and keep momentum until the next wave catch you, because the boat is just sliding precipetously down the back of the wave peak. If youre good with math, you can figure out a lot about the wave speed and the energy. The higher the wave peak, the greater the duration of assist and higher the peak speed. Conversely, that means the greater the reciprocal drop in speed and probably a longer dwell in the trought, which depends on the interval. If your peak speed is 6.9 mph while sliding down the face, the speed may drop to 3.2 mph, as the boat follows the wave but slides down thec reverse side. if you paddle at full out anerobic, you might reach 3.6 mph before you reach the valley, which is where the speed could balance out at 5.4 mph with just aerobic effort. The question come down to how beneficial was it to go anerobic for two or three seconds while trying to power up the back face of a retreating wave to gain a .4 mph speed advantage. That is esentially like increasing your effort by 3.7 mph for several seconds to gain .4 mph in speed.

Although it’s hypothetical, it pays to think about energy stores and better options for using it. Returning into the waves, the boat hits the waves, but the bow cuts through them, which eases the blunting force. Then you’ll slide down the back quickly, rather than sustaining a long backside while following the wave and wallowing in the trough. Adding power to chase the wave only prelongs the duration of the effort. It’s similar to pushing over thevsweet spot of the hull speed. You’ll make gains up to a point, but is it worthwhile if you don’t have the reserves. If you’ve ever bonked, you’ll understand the effect. Conditioning extends your capacity, so practice makes perfect, for when you need it.

By saving your energy to power into the waves on the return trip, you accomplish two things. Instead of resorting to paddling aerobically at 3.6 mph, by pushing to sustain 4.6 mph instead, you literally reduce your exposure by the amount of time the 1 mph increase reduces the duration of the trip. So a 2 mile trip amounts to about 7 minutes shorter trip duration. That is is if you can sustain the anerobic output for 26 minutes over the 2 miles. My math might be fuzzy, but it’s a better return on the speed for the energy investment.

Although the reverse trip means powering through the wave peaks, that is unavoidable. The bow of the boat is wedge shaped so it slices the waves to mitigate the force of wave energy. The higher the speed and more consistent the stroke, the greater the momentum to resist the pounding. The less time spent in that wave train, the less force you’ll have to face (how many wave impacts can you count over 7 minutes in a 2 mile run.

I’m not good at math, but you can see how playing with the timing and the effort to balance the avg speed between riding down wind or using the energy to power into the conditions. The winning strategy shows up as flatness and speed consistency in the graph, which translates into higher avg speed. GPS isn’t just about telling you how fast or far you’re going. It’s a high speed computer that serves you when perception is at its worse.

Of course it isn’t always as cut and dry as that, but understanding the dynamics is the key to better control of your energy so you can go further while experiencing less fatigue. It also gives you an edge in calculating trips and managing unexpected conditions.

Many paddlers are not aware of the influence shallow water has on speed, but it can easily knock a mile per hour off your effort.

Shadepine · May 16, 2025, 2:24am

Ha…I just read new posts quickly but will have to go back and read them again. I still can’t believe you guys are going 6+ mph…but maybe the reason I never go that fast is that about 98-99% of the time I’m paddling in strong coastal winds and pretty big chop/waves.

As for the rudder being a drag on speed…I’ve noticed that, but for me it’s nowhere near 1mph. Maybe a few tenths at most.

As for edging to turn and using turning strokes…I don’t disagree that some (depending on skill and the boat) may be able to do these with zero loss of energy…but I’m pretty good at it and find it tiring over a long distance. Like many of us, I have several different techniques I’ll use if I’m cruising along and notice the bow starting to weathercock or drift somewhere I don’t want it to go:

I’ll tip the boat up on edge just long enough for the bow to come back where I want it, then level out again and keep paddling;
I’ll incorporate a good strong sweep into my forward strokes to push the bow back where I want it, then go back to normal forward paddling;
I’ll just do 2-3 strokes on the same side in a row and push the bow back;
(Less effective but still works) I’ll incorporate a brief draw at the plant/catch on the opposite side I’m drifting toward to pull the bow back by opening up my blade angle (sort of like a quick bow rudder). Not as good because of course it slows me down a bit.
Last weekend when I was paddling 6 miles back on the Lower Umpqua against a strong ebb tide, I was staying near shore, not so close to get into bottom drag, but along the eddy line between the fast current and the eddy. The problem with this is that my bow kept catching some of the current , which would push it out into the current. So I was constantly fighting it. (In my Tempest 170.) So in that situation, I just ended up offsetting my grip: sliding my hand on the eddy side right down to the blade, and sliding my other hand in the same direction so I had more paddle on the current side and less in the eddy. This was much harder on my right arm (the current side) but it worked and kept me tracking straight, so I did that for a good mile or so.

I also do what I think you mention @Jyak: grabbing the end of the blade on one side when I do sweeps to turn the boat. Having that much leverage (and having your sweeping blade that much farther out there) really turns the Tempest fast!

Totally agree with thoughts on why we all have our own reasons for paddling the way we do. Sometimes I like to slow down, grab my binoculars and do some birding. But while enjoying the scenery generally, I mainly paddle for fitness, which is why I tend to go hard.

I’ll never forget my first solo kayak camping trip in the San Juan Islands: most kayakers I talk with (or read online) will take a ferry out to one of the islands and paddle from there. People often talk about making the crossing from the mainland across the Rosario Strait to the islands like it’s a deathwish, LOL. It’s only about 2-3 miles (depending on where you do it)…and you do have to be aware of tidal currents, but I knew they wouldn’t be stronger than 2.5-3kts and knew I could easily paddle faster than that.

The first time I went, I put in on the mainland near Bellingham, and the paddle out to the northernmost islands was easy—I paddled the entire way nonstop at a good clip (4.5-5mph) and I was there in no time. I found myself wondering why people act like it’s such a big deal to do that paddle (and I’ll add that it would definitely be harder in really windy/rough conditions, but I wouldn’t be doing it then!). I think it’s because most kayakers either don’t like paddling hard or just can’t (because they aren’t in shape to do it).

Scott

Jyak · May 16, 2025, 3:44am

I’m currently 6 ft 230 lbs. The 145 is far more controllable than the 175 which required a rudder most of the time. My typical trip is hitting about 4.65 to 4.84 over 8.5 miles in the 145, and the 175 is about 4.71 to 5.03 mph.

The rudder effect is variable. Under some conditions the rudder increases my potential (going with conditions. While going into conditions, the drag compounds. My estimatevis about .3 mph deficit. I do think my weigh loss benefited the 145, but it seems to have hurt the edging on the 175. So i have to specify which boat I’m using.

Shadepine · May 16, 2025, 3:38pm

Interesting. The 145 is a shorter boat so with the same weight in both boats, the 145 will sit lower in the water, which I’d think would mean (generally speaking) greater resistance to turning (since more of the hull is underwater)…but I dunno?

I’d also think that a shorter boat will always be easier to hoss around than a longer one. But again, I could be wrong!

My perspective is probably warped (in good and bad ways) by the long time I spent paddling a slalom C-1. To see exactly what I’m talking about, watch 30 seconds of this (not me, but this is what I did for years):

My slalom boat is 11.5’ long, and weighs 22lbs. I can pick it up with a finger. And as you can see from the video above, these boats are designed to turn fast. In a C-1, because you only have a paddle on one side…and because if you so much as even just put your paddle in the water (without actually taking a stroke), the boat starts to turn. So it takes a good year of daily practice and training just to learn to paddle one in a straight line, LOL. But it’s possible, and eventually becomes second-nature. You do it by using J-strokes and offside forward strokes (paddling on the other side without swapping your hand position).

My point in that little digression is that I’m pretty sensitive to boats wanting to turn, LOL. As well as pretty adept at doing things almost subconsciously with my strokes to keep them from turning. So it probably skews how I perceive touring kayaks!

Jyak · May 16, 2025, 9:05pm

I had a one time experience in a 6 foot slalom kayak. That episode lasted about 10 minutes and It convinced me that kayaking was not for me. The posted video shows what I was supposed to do, if I had only known . . .

The relationship between boat length and buoyancy obviously depends on the desired properties. Obviously, two boats with equal buoyancy can be designed in a 14 ft as well as 17 ft, and they can be built in identical weight. Two such boats weighing the same can be designed to have identical buoyancy and carry an identical load, if they both displace the same amount of water, they both should have the same wetted surface.

If each boat design starts with a fixed length (14 or 17 feet) the dimensions just have to be stretched to make it wider or have greater draught and freeboard. Although we are typically not accustomed to such boats, they do exist. Look at at a 170 Tempest and the 145 Tsunami. Similar weight, similar capacity (+/- 25 lbs), yet one is faster, and it turns easier.

Compare that to the 175 Tsunami, which is heavier than both boats by more than 10 lbs, slightly narrower than the same model 145 Tsunami, but the 175 is 6 inches longer and 2 inches narrower than the Tempest.

Based on the input from this thread, the speeds are not really significantly different, with the 145 by 24.5 inch (old model Tsunami) is about .4 to .6 mph slower (hull speed charts suggest it’s as much as .6 mph slower), but the 175 by 24 inch is about .2 slower than the 170 Tempest.

That should give a reasonable idea of how the width, length and weight of similar hull dimensions influence speed. If the 175 Tsunami dropped to 22 inches wide, I wonder how it would compare to the 170 Tempest, considering both being the same weight and presumably closer to the same displacement.

I wouldn’t expect the Tsunami to turn better, unless the rocker changes. The longer the length, the greater the need for rocker to ease turning (the rudder would probably not equal the turning efficiency of the 170 Tempest, which relies more on rocker to turn. The skeg was added to compensate and “help” it go straighter when deployed.

Considering the varied dimension and the close relationship between the speeds, it seems to me that the variation in the dimensions influences handling and load capacity far more than speed. The two inches in width and 6 inches in length adds 75 lbs of maximum load capacity over the Tempest. While the 180 Tempest Pro adds 6 inches to thr length and reduces width by 1 inch, both the 175 Tsunami and 180 Tempest Pro carry the same load.

This thread also mentions the length/width ratio. The rocker on both the 145 and 175 seem very similar to me, but the length and narrower width of the 175 doesn’t isn’t seem as conducive to turning, nor is it as as effective in an edge, prosibly because of the length/width ratio. Edging involves dropping one side of the boat, so the greater curve at the gunnel uses the weight of the water to leverage the boat around the curvature of the hull. I’m curious how the old 24.5 inch wide Tsunami edges in comparison to the new 25.5 inch model.

On the other hand, i believe the slightly banana shaped rocker of the Tempest aids the boat while balanced upright, but by leaning the Tempest on its side, you are actually creating a more radical banana curve. Are the chines between the Tsunami and the Tempest are different because they have different functions. I’ll go out on a limb and suggest that the lower initial stability of the Tempest allows the boat to lean into the secondary stability more easily, where the secondary stability is has a very distinct easy to find stop. From there, the boat should be easier to spin, like Michael Jackson on his back while break dancing. My guess is that the Tempest might be easier to spin like a top using paddle strokes, while the Tsunami (especially the 145) takes advantage of the imbalanced pressure of water against the hull as the boat travels through water.

Comparing both kayak models to a slalom kayak, the Tempest would seem closer to the slalom model. Just thinking that turning either boat requires a different strategy to be effective. Curious about the thoughts of @Shadepine and @Craig_S, since you both paddle between and respect both models.

Jyak · May 27, 2025, 8:51pm

Tested the 260 cm Kalliste on first trip of the year. First trip avg speed registers within .1 mph from year to year. The 260 cm avg speed over the same course was .5 to .6 mph faster than past 3 yearswhen I was using the 250 cm Kalliste. Not recommending anybody change paddle. Just reporting the difference I experienced between the two paddles.

Buffalo_Alice · May 27, 2025, 10:23pm

Interesting. Given your consistency in prior years and the rather big difference this year, the 260cm paddle is the obvious variable. Why? Consider this:
If (1) the depth of the blades is the same, and (2) the height of your hands is the same, and (3) your cadence is the same as as with the 250, then the blades of the longer paddle will be a bit farther from the center line and, as a result, give you a slightly longer power stroke. But, in order to maintain the same cadence with a longer power stroke, you’d need to supply a little more power per stroke … and that would increase your speed (I think!).
What’s your theory?

Jyak · May 27, 2025, 11:47pm

You’re asking the right questions. In reality, .5 mpg is a minor gain, but it is statistically significant, when compared to the consistency of previous first trips. I think half is better technique and some is due to the paddle. In the end, it’s a personal assessment. What surprises me is how there eas no perceptible difference between the 240 and 250 cm paddles. More paddle time needed, because the paddlec made a bigg we difference than a longer boat.

The cadence between 240 and 250 cm was insignificant, but the 250 cm to 260cm was a definite drop of 4 to 6 spm and I didn’t try to hit 80 spm. I didn’t even try to hit 72 spm, but I could sustain 68 spm. The reason it didn’t seem to impact glide is because as long as you stay aerobic, the length keeps the boat on glide without increasing the transition between the exit and catch. The longer power arc keeps the glide up. I noticed fewer spikes with prolonged drops under below the target average speed (I settle on a target average speed within the first 1/4 mile).

It was easier to manage consistency with the 260cm. The boost/penalty for going with or against the conditions was, by my calculations, about .3 mph gain or resistance.

I didn’t expect the results. It isn’t a simple matter of swinging a longer paddle. I had to learn the 240 cm, then the 250 cm. Now a whole new curve, but I think it offers certain advantages, but it’s like going to a wing or Greenland.

I asked my neice (math and engineering background) to calculate the area of my Greenland, and I was shocked by the total area. Two issues with the Greenland for pure propulsion is the radical cant of 30° that allows the paddle to slip, and the full resistance isn’t realized until the paddle is about 1/2 way through the power arch.

Need multiple trip to see if the results pan out.

Jyak · May 28, 2025, 12:22am

Read your post again. One thing the longer paddle allows is a wider grip. That opens the chest are to facilitate breathing, which is one advantage of low angle - it doesn’t compress you rib cage. Opening the grip opens the chest. Clearing out Co2 is easier and it seems faster to return to the anerobic threshold. I noticed there are no spikes that end up droping the average below the targer avg speed.

Compare that to these first trip and last trip of the season.

Early trip and one showing peaks and a cobsisyent slide under the avg speed, which is the body shutting down from anerobic exertion.

I can’t explain the spike eay on with this paddle, so don’t put too much value on it. I think much of the credit goes to technique improvement from interacting with Craig, although hevuses a totaly different techniques. Go figure.

Buffalo_Alice · May 28, 2025, 3:22pm

A wider hand grip on the longer paddle is a variable I hadn’t considered. I could be (and probably is) significant.

Jyak · May 28, 2025, 4:17pm

It is a benefit if your technique is core rotation. Contrary to what prevailing wisdom suggests, I found that the longer sweep increases control because the blades stay in the water longer. The stroke showed no cavitation, flutter, oscillation, bubbles or additional strain, but my cadence range dropped from 72 - 80 spm to 64 - 68 spm. In spite of all that, an increase of .5 mph is only 5 to 10%. Compare that to walking at 3 to 4 mph. An increase of 1/2 mph really isn’t much, but it does show a clear statistical difference. Switching to a wing paddle gives about a similar speed advantage. Incidentally, my Euro stroke follows a similar path used by wing paddlers, in that the catch occurs close to the hull and the stroke ends up angling away from the boat at about 30°. I think that the wing paddle shape improves the efficiency. However, the wing seems.to get used mostly for higher speed under greater exertion, and its at a higher angle. My paddling technique is different.