RE:[Paddlewise] Tsunami 145 vs. 140

Mark J. Arnold wrote:

>>>>>A friend was telling me that she had heard that the Tsunami 140 did not
handle nearly as well as the Tsunami 145.  We both have paddled a 145 and
liked the handling a lot but felt it was too large for us.   We are both
interested in the Tsunami 140 but there is not one in our area to test
paddle.

Has anyone had a chance to compare the 145 to the 140?  I would appreciate
any comments you would be willing to share.  We are interested in the
plastic versions.<<<<<<<

I've not been able to send or receive e-mail for nearly a week so this may
be a little late but I see no one else has responded so here goes. I got to
try both models at the 8/05 Outdoor Retailer Show on Great Salt Lake's
freshwater arm, Willis? Bay. It was a windy day with whitecapping waves from
1 to 1.5 feet high. I found both boats to be excellent designs in nearly all
respects. The main difference I noticed was that my turn without a lean time
(a measure of tracking stiffness) was 19 seconds for a 180 turn vs. 16
seconds for the 140. Because of the wind this might not be as great because
the greater windage on the 145 might have slowed me down a bit with it in
the turns. My 180 time with a strong lean was 10 seconds for each kayak.
Because the deck is higher on the 145 I could lean it more without taking
water in the cockpit (the furthest I lean when testing--when it is possible
to go that far--to try keep a consistent basis for comparison between
kayaks, even if I have no spraydeck that fits). Again the wind may have
slowed me a bit over what my times might have been with leaned turns in calm
water. To me these times a close to what I like to see in a kayak. They were
relatively quick turning when leaned and with reasonable tracking stiffness
when level. Actually I like the leaned number as low as possible (given a
kayak's length) and the level time close to double (or more) than the leaned
time. I didn't think either of these kayaks needed a rudder. So save your
money, a rudder will just get in your way. Both were dry riding in waves,
didn't weatherhelm in side winds, and stayed on course very well in steep
following seas. These are rare qualities in kayaks but are also the reasons
I think a rudder would do more harm than good on them. They also turned when
they were tilted in the opposite direction. Another feature I like in a
kayak. Be warned that in general I've found variations in shape between
plastic kayaks of the same model (that can effect the consistency of my
times when testing different kayaks of the same model). I'm not saying this
is necessarily the case with Tsunamis but it could be the reason your friend
thought there was a large difference between the 140 and 145. If the ones he
tested happened to be at opposite extremes of the normal variations in their
shape (from their being rotomolded plastic) that might account for his
perceived differences. Both had excellent storage room for a kayak of there
respective lengths and widths. I'd choose the 140 unless one had long legs
and/or big feet or needed the extra gear capacity of the 145. Both seemed
very fast for their length (for catching and surfing the waves) but paddling
effort at cruising speed might be a just little more than some sleeker
kayaks of similar length and width. That's a trade-off I'd readily pay for
the superior handling and gear room of the Tsunamis. Because of the large
amount of flare at the sides (with the resulting smaller footprint on the
water) they paddle much easier than one might expect of a kayak of their
widths. This also means that they are much easier to lean when you want to
turn them because of the lower initial stability. This flare means the
secondary stability is very confidence inspiring. These and the 120 and 125
Tsunamis are way better than any other Rec. kayaks I've tried. I have no
connection to the company (in fact I guess they are a competitor) but it was
good to see a designer finally get rec. kayaks right. I've been so
frustrated with most Rec. kayaks that I considered designing one. Now I
don't have to do so. Being plastic I wouldn't store them out in the Texas
sun. (copyright Matt Broze)

Someone mentioned a kayak falling of a trailer and mentioned that it might
have faired better had it been rotomolded. Years ago someone reported a rack
with four kayaks blowing off their car roof. The three fiberglass kayaks got
scratched some. The end broke off the rotomolded kayak (and it was one of
the middle kayaks on the rack that might have been expected to have been
more protected than those on the outside more likely to have taken a harder
blow). Age, sun, ozone and some breakdown products of natural gas all
contribute to plasticizer loss in plastic (and that means the kayaks get
more brittle). Since there are no fibers in rotomolded kayaks increasing
their brittleness becomes a far greater problem for them than for the resin
in a fiberglass kayak. Most of the toughness of rotomolded kayaks comes from
their flexibility so do your best to keep them that way.

Matt Broze
http://www.marinerkayaks.com
***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************