Gcosloy Posted June 7, 2007 Share Posted June 7, 2007 Thinking of the new Capella 167 or 163. I'm 180 and 5'10 and don't load my boat with a lot of expedition or camping gear. Both boats fit fine, the 163 like a glove and the 167 a little more roomy with a slightly longer cockpit. Any thoughts on what I else I need to consider in choosing between them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cnsladd Posted June 7, 2007 Share Posted June 7, 2007 If you do more distance paddling the 167 might be your best choice, if you like to play more in swells, surf and rock gardens the 163 would be the best choice as it tends to be a bit more agile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EEL Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 Since you have indicated hauling around lots of gear is not something you are going to be doing, my neophyte's advice is to go with the smaller boat. Maybe test paddle the 161. Most boats seem to have a design displacement for a paddler of suggested weight and at least 40-50# which means even rather small boats can make great day boats. I have foolishly been considering a Rumor for a day boat, and I'm your size. I have found boats which seem small, cramped, and even hard to get into become roomy, comfy and spacious after a few trips. They also can be much more enjoyable in terms of handling on and off water to say nothing of increasing that delightful state where you and the boat seem to melt together. Caveat: I have recently been paddling a SOF and now everything else seems huge, ponderous, and obscenely heavy. Ed Lawson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterB Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 Gene, The 167, I think, is conceived as a Capella for larger paddlers: as you are medium sized I would try the 163, which is a tried and true winner, with the 161 a bit smaller tried and true winner , as Ed says. Since P& H boats have a solid reputation and lots of paddlers will have lots to say. almost all positive, the best thing would be to get some butt time in the boat you're interested in, paddling in the kind of environment and conditions you would ultimately be in if you owned the boat. (ha ha, sage- like advice I've not always followed...) I'm pretty sure you can demo and/or rent one from CRCK, and probably deduct whatever rental costs if you chose to buy. NESC would do well for you too; I'm sure they have demos for all the P&H boats (Shameless Brad G. plug here) . John Carmody now is a P&H emiissary, and if perchance you could cross paths with him you might even get a test drive laced with some instruction (shameless BCU/Carmody plug here..) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deb Millar Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 Gene, I'd go with a 163 or 161. Personal email on the way. Deb M (who still owns 2 P&H boats, one of which is for sale and the other one might be...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subaruguru Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 Hi Gene, Interestingly, I'll be test paddling the 163 and 167 soon as a possibility for a playboat adjunct for my Force 5 (or Cetus if it proves to have a more comfy cockpit than the Impex's). Although I'm not a real fan of the noisey Chathams, I've been told enough that the 16 is a fine playboat...just not an efficient one for distances. It's older necky smaller cockpit fits small/medium paddlers pretty well, although the newer 17/18's cockpit's nicer. And what is it about your Chathams that motivates your search for the Capellas? Hope to see you on the water soon. Ern Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gcosloy Posted June 9, 2007 Author Share Posted June 9, 2007 I've recently sold my Chatham 17. Too similar in most ways to my 16. It is capable of going faster than the 16 but only if you have the engine to push it. In rough water conditions I'm actually faster with the 16 because it's more manueverable. Why the Capella? It may be even more fun than the 16. If I get one and it is as stable in rough water as the 16, I'll sell the 16 as well. Every boat has some tradeoff that not everyone will agree to. The Chatham 16 is the most reassuring boat I've ever been in when the going gets rough. I think it is those chines that run much further fore and aft into the bow and stern that provide for more stability. Maybe that's what makes it noisy. I think of them as training wheels. Ever been in a big beam sea and never even think of having to brace? That's the kind of confidence I've gained from the 16. Anyway even if the boat is perfect, I'd like another boat for variety. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shewhorn Posted June 18, 2007 Share Posted June 18, 2007 > Maybe test paddle the 161. Ditto. I'm 5'9", #182 and I've been paddling around in a 161 for my playboat. The only difficulty if you can call it that is getting in and out as the coaming isn't long enough to get the legs in (obviously they didn't have taller people in mind for this boat but it's a great playboat). You don't have to do an ocean cockpit entry but it does involve a mini scramble. I plop by butt in the boat, legs on either side, put both hands on the back deck, lift my butt a smidge, one leg in, lift butt again, other leg in. I can get into it almost as fast as I can get into the Aquanaut. Speed wise I can sprint her to 5.6 knots in calm water no wind but that's the absolute wall. I can keep her at 4 knots no problems, things start getting a little more difficult at 4.5 knots but that's still doable. I probably carry another 15 pounds or so of gear with me (hypo kit, fix things kit, med kit, and an oh damnit I'm really screwed kit). At that weight the boat has jussssstttt enough weather cocking that it you can really fine tune it with the skeg and it's very responsive to small skeg inputs. Also... something I'm enjoying much more than I thought I would... she's really light for a glass boat and so much easier to get on the car than the 'nauty. Surf wise, I'm still figuring out how to surf this boat (inexperience here). What I'm noticing is that relative to the 'naut once I have the way I have to pay a lot more attention to where I'm carrying my weight. With the 'naut I can stay leaning forward for quite a while and the nose won't dive bomb. Do that with the 161 and you'll find yourself going under or over, one of the two. I think I've finally figured out yesterday that I have better control of this boat when leaning back slightly in order to pull the bow up just a tad more. The 'naut could really care less, she's just big. Cheers, Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppy09 Posted June 18, 2007 Share Posted June 18, 2007 Paddled both boats this weekend at Kitterys on water demo but when it comes down to it opinions are like Aholes everyone has one and they all stink. Paddle the boat and if it feals right to you then buy it. ps. I liked the 163 better than the 167 but what do i know. Doug H. CD Solstice GT Green on White Valley Avocet RM Green with Black Specs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Carmody Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 Gene, I had the opportunity to paddle the Capella 167 last week in Wales. I surfed it, played at The Bitches, and paddled distances along the coast. This is a great boat. The hull is a stretched version of the 161 which has been accepted very well as the update of the 163. The cockpit has been lengthened to accomodate longer femurs such as mine. The quality of construction is superb. Email me if you have any questions at john.carmody at gmail dot com. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.