any thoughts on...........

[tommmyc]

the tempest 170 or a similar kayak. please keep in mind i am new to the kayak world but do have long term plans to get my feet wet in the ocean. thanks in advance

tom

[JohnHuth]

I have a fiberglass Tempest 170 - it's great!

My only minor nudge is that the hatch covers tend to leak - there are various purported cures for this. This only really shows up in heavy seas, with lots of wash over the deck. It's never been so serious that I've had to resort to RTV to cure it, so it's manageable.

Overall - great tracking, good at carving turns, surfs well, easy to roll. I'm 5'10" - am XXX pounds, but look much lighter.

John Huth

[tommmyc]

i should have added that i am going with the 170 vs 165 because i am 5'9" and about 235lbs. i have tried them both and the 170 fits me real nice for my size.

tom

[jonsprag1]

I've owned an RM(plastic)Tempest 170 since October 03 and absolutly love it. Like others I had a bit of a problem with water in the rear hatch---this was solved by tightening the nut holding the wire into the skeg casing and making sure the hatches were on tightly----the proper method is to pound the edge of the hatch all around the perimeter with the heel of your palm--to make sure the groove of the hatch cover is all the way over and down around the lip of the hatch---if you do that then you shouldn't have a problem---I have had the boat out in all kinds of weather, including 4'-6' seas and have had no problem with water in the hatches---have also done extensive rolling practice, both in a pool and on open water, and, once I made sure the covers were on tight, had no water whatsoever in the boat. It has great secondary stability, pretty good primary stability, behaves well in all types of seas and in any wind direction(upwind, downwind and beam) and rolls like a dream, should you ever find your self in that position. It's a boat that a novice can use with a little practice but won't get bored with after a few seasons. Before buying however, you should do what I did and rent one for a day just to try it out. I like mine so much that I've decided to buy a either a FG Tempest or a kevlar one, hopefully as soon as I can get the money togather. I'll keep the RM boat to use when I guide clients---would want not to scratch up the FG and don't need the speed while guiding that would be the reason to buy the FG or Kev.

[sweier]

I had a RM Tempest 170 for a few years excellent boat. I second everything jonsprag said in his reply. I sold my Tempest in Sept and bought a NDK Explorer now I thinking that was a mistake. I miss the comfort of the Tempest. With the Tempest you dont need to glue in padding or remove seats etc just get in and go. My next boat will most likely be a FG Tempest 170. Enjoy.

Chip

[Rick crangle]

I must say, that I look at the 170 vs 165 in a different light. I tried both and the overwhelming difference was in the volume at the cockpit. In the 165, I felt, the perfect height proportion at the area the knees come in contact with the under deck. With the 170 that height was too much and the boat felt cavernous. Now I know you might say that the extra volume at that point on the boat is for larger people, but I am not so sure that is the best point to put the volume. Looking at the larger person in a boat there are two areas of concern, one the proper cockpit hole size, for ease in entering not necessarily exiting, and two, volume for the compensation for the extra weight and how it effects the designed optimal waterline. With regard for the first criteria, getting the legs into the boat is a feature of the cockpit hole design and not necessarily the place to raise the deck to fit a larger person. The deck height on the 165 is lower and allows for the optimal placement of the knees, wide enough to easily edge the boat without straining, yet having a close contact needed for a good fit. Secondly, if the volume for the larger person design is centered by raising the top deck at the cockpit area, I think the designer has missed an opportunity to balance the boat. I would have placed the additional volume proportionately between the front and rear decks. This spreads the volume out away from the center and thus increasing the buoyancy to keep the waterline where it should be, but gives more buoyancy to the front of the boat to keep it on top of the water, not diving. Spreading the volume away from the center balances the boat and is a more effective way to gain buoyancy because the volume is leveraged by being farther from the centered load of the paddler and thus giving the boat better trim characteristics in bumpy seas. I think the 165 did the right balance and the 170 missed. A boat should be sleek and fit, no midriff bulge, for good performance. Just a thought that's what you asked for.

[RogerPollock]

I second Rick’s assessment of the T170. Even as a bigger guy (5’11”-200 +lbs) I found the T170 cavernous – just a huge swallowing cockpit – hence I chose the T165. With some custom outfitting (like seat removal) I fit perfectly, have great control, and love the boat.

I did not demo the T170, rejecting it immediately on cockpit volume alone. . . .

Though the T165 is very lively and maneuverable, and tracks fine, and is a lot of fun, the sacrifice is speed. This may be because I’m on the bigger side for the boat, or perhaps ultimately you’re only going to get so much speed from a 16.5’ boat?

It’s a bummer they put so much cockpit volume in the T170. It would be nice to have that little extra speed, while keeping the similar hull characteristics as the T165 . . .

[EEL]

> Secondly, if

>the volume for the larger person design is centered by

>raising the top deck at the cockpit area, ......Spreading the volume away from the center

>balances the boat

This raises an issue/question that has confused me. Volume is something that is often talked about when describing kayaks, but I am unsure what it means in terms of boat characteristics. Perhaps in error, I have thought there is the displacement volume and then there is the volume enclosed by the hull and deck. It has seemed to me that what matters most in terms of how volume affects boat performance, whatever that term means, is how the hull displacement volume is distributed at its design waterline as you indicate. It is not clear to me what impact the enclosed volume has on the performance of the boat aside from windage and perhaps in large waves aside from what can be carried and how the boat fits the paddler. In other words, if you take a boat and keep the same hull, but put a shorter deck on it; haven't you created a low volume boat in the latter sense, but not the former. If my assumption is true, then such a boat still has the same designed displacement to reach the proper waterline which in turn means it really is not designed for a lighter paddler even though it is now otherwise sized for a smaller paddler and often sold/described as a low volume boat. Conversely, could you not build a low displacment volume boat with a high enclosed volume? Perhaps I just do not understand boats and curious about whether the distinction I mention regarding volume has any validity or not.

Ed Lawson

[JohnHuth]

I'm quite comfortable in the 170, and I'm not that large. Maybe I'm doing something wrong? The leg placement makes me feel like I have a lot of leverage - as I can bring force for pitch/yaw/roll efficiently.

[jonsprag1]

I've paddled both the 170 and 165---and didn't find that much difference in the "volume" of the cockpit---both fit me relatively snugly---both boats have a seating system that is designed to be modified to the size of the paddler---to adjust for the hips, hard foam shims are put in or taken out of the hip pads on each side of the cockpit.(the shims are provided with each new boat by W/S) The thigh braces can be adjusted via a screw on the top of each brace and the backband has three buckles which can be used to adjust it to fit. According to the W/S specs, the 170 cockpit is 34" long, 18" wide and the depth is 13.5" The 165 cockpit is also 34"long, 18"wide but with a depth of 12.5"---one inch less---I suspect the reason why the 170 may have felt cavarnous may have been due to the thigh, hip, and back adjustments---I took a few moments to do the facotory provided adjusting and mine fits like a glove(I'm 5'11" and 170 lbs)---in fact the main complaint some paddlers have, if you can call it that, is that to do a wet exit, the paddler has to actually remove his feet from the pegs, straighten his legs and push himself out of the cockpit, compared to simply falling out of it like some more loosly fitted boats. Did either of you add the hard foam shims that come with the boat to make it fit tighter and did you adjust the thigh braces and back band to give you a tighter fit?

[EEL]

>

>

>Maybe I'm doing something wrong?

I think all discussions of what boats are good, bad, or whatever should end with "Your mileage may vary." Its like bikes. I hate bikes with slack head and steep seat tube angles and others love them. Its what works for you and that too likely changes as skills and interests change.

Ed Lawson

[jonsprag1]

True enough

[tommmyc]

thanks for the input. i live about 2 miles from crck and will try what they have there.

tom

[tommmyc]

i would love to buy kevlar or glass but i don't want to ruin it.

tom

[tommmyc]

i will try both and go with the best fit

thanks

tom

[tommmyc]

very true.one mans junk is another mans treasure

thanks

tom

[Rick crangle]

I don’t want, or intend, to get into a weighty discussion of boat designs, or hull volume ratio to wetted surface. The 170 felt larger, higher, than was good for me, I liked the 165 fit, in comparison. Would you be surprised if one of the design criteria for a production boat was that it would fit as wide a range of paddlers as possible through building the cockpit size generously rather than not? There is a boat for anyone out there these days. It is what feels good to you at your level of skill, abilities, interests, at the time.

We do tend to talk about boats using volume for different measurable differences, such as how much your boat will carry on the camping trip, how large, not heavy, your boat is, or what the effect of volume is with regard to freeboard fore or aft. Ideally I like a boat that is long and sleek, low in the water but not enough to have the bow dive or catch water for my weight, stable (a relative word) in confused water and able to take a beating (you may be sore but you can walk away from a fight). I find all that in the my boat. In the scheme of things it doesn’t matter what boat that is. It is designed for a larger paddler than I, but maybe an inch off the width would suit me. I thought that the 165 was a nice little boat and I was uncomfortable playing with the 170, my size, my feel. I don’t see the point of over analyzing things, there are too many variables, too subjective.

As a side, skills are related to boats just as tools are to craftsman. Tools are designed to function with specific purposes, but the craftsman employs the tools to create to the height of the tool’s function and beyond its common purpose. Boats can be tools. It’s fun we’re making, boat and paddle the tools , be creative.

[Fred C]

I have the 170 RM and like it. The hatches are not bone dry but they don’t leak so much it bothers me. I am 6’ 3” tall and about 195. The 165 is too tight a fit for me. In the 170 I removed the four screws that secure the seat, moved the whole seat back one hole then put the four screws back in place. That gave me the extra 1-2 inches of legroom I needed. It’s not a fast boat but it is fun to paddle and I used it often last year.

[ccarlson]

Just curious as to what you might do to ruin a glass or kevlar boat?

[tommmyc]

no real reason. i just tend to drop things. i doubt that would be good while carrying a glass kayak.

tom

[Gcosloy]

You asked about the Tempest 170 or similar boat. If you like the characteristics of the 170 you should also try the Chatham 16 and 17. The Chatham is designed with a similar paddler in mind: beginner to Intermediate that wants the responsiveness inherent in a more expert boat but needs the forgiving very strong secondary stability that insures fun and not fear. I've tried both and like the Chathams.

Gene

[ccarlson]

won't really hurt them... don't ask me how I know ;-)

[bob budd]

Last spring I was foisting Rodni atop our Forester and the keel chose a different path than between the rollers. The nose of the kayak bounced as it hit the pavement. Though she shed a bit of gelcoat, the nose was otherwise intact and remained that way until warmer weather allowed for gelcoat repair. I'd also note that though you might be less concerned about incidental damage on a plastic boat a truly damaged plastic boat is a much more difficult craft to repair. I'd suggest you look at Brian's website and get comfortable with gelcoat repair. If you buy the right boat, your back will thank you. My wife's boat is a joy to hoist on off the racks on the vehicle and in the garage.