Just purchased 16' Esquif Prospecteur T-Formex, should I get the 17' foot instead?

[BirchBeer]

My wife and I are getting into tripping. We were lucky to find and purchase a 16' Esquif Prospecteur. However, the supplier does also have a 17' that I can trade up to if we change my mind before we go pick up the canoe.

I can't see regretting the decision to get the 16' but I've seen a lot of folks swear by 17' footers for tripping.

We'd like to be able to do up to 2 week trips in the future, but it's probably not going to happen this year, we'll probably only go out for a week max.

Having done a lot of backpacking in the past I've become quite the minimalist camper. However I'm 6'4" and I weigh around 240lbs.

So hence the quandary.

Also no passengers/children/dogs.

It would also be nice to be able to solo the canoe as well.

I'm pretty sure we can get all the things we need out of the 16 and I'd much prefer the 65lbs of the 16' to the 75lbs of the 17'.

So that's my thinking.

Should I get the 17 instead?

 

[alsg]

Do you expect to do a lot of portaging? If so, the 10lbs will be important. If not, go for the longer canoe. More room for gear and a longer water line makes for a faster canoe.

 

[BirchBeer]

I am expecting to do a fair bit portaging. I'm hoping to do a lot canoeing of the Churchill river area of Saskatchewan and there are plenty of portages as far as I can tell.

 

[billconner]

I would guess the maximum comfortable load of the 16 is 550-600 pounds. With two for a week or two we have 120-150 pounds of gear. I would certainly not like an extra 10 pounds on portage, but I'd lean towards the 17 if on lakes of any size.

 

[BirchBeer]

Thanks for the input billconner.

The capacity of the Prospecteur 16 is 850lbs, so yes hopefully that makes a comfortable carry of 550 to 600lbs.

So 550lbs minus my weight of 240 and my wife's of 120 ends up with 190 to 240 lbs left over for gear. Does that sound unreasonable?

But the gist I'm getting so far is that folks would err on the side of more capacity.

Thanks for taking time to give me some insight here.

 

[dschult2]

I might be in the minority but I would stick with 16. Your gear is not going to change that much from one week to two, just more food really. It sounds like you have a backpacking background so you either have or are used to using ultralight gear which I would suggest for a two week trip. Also sounds like you want to portage a lot and use it solo. Either of those won't be fun with a 17.

 

[Guest]

Tough choice. I’m with Dschult2, for two criteria and responses above:

I am expecting to do a fair bit portaging.

The 16 has the burden capacity you (at least currently) need, the 10 (11?) lbs lighter makes a difference on the shoulders and, looking to the future, every canoe I have owned seemingly became heavier the older I got.

My wife and I are getting into tripping.

Just starting out tripping it is hard to predict how your (plural) future style will develop.

If you foresee your gear load possibly getting larger, doing off-season trips, bringing less backpacky foodstuffs, bigger tent, screen house (Dutch oven, chairs, even future trips requiring a potable water supply or portable toilet), I too might err on the side of increased capacity, especially with a partner’s unknown preference in future tripping style, venue and creature comforts desires.

But, for now, all expectations staying the same, I think the 16 wins out.

It would also be nice to be able to solo the canoe as well.

I’d rather solo a 16’ Prospector than a 17 footer, so if there is a realistic desire to paddle the canoe solo, as an occasional solo tripper, or day paddler or just an empty canoe jaunt from base camp, the 16 would be a better all-arounder.

More room for gear and a longer water line makes for a faster canoe.

The longer waterline speed becomes an odd conundrum; that bit of extra speed on rivers, where it is less needed, vs the easier cruising speed on flatwater, but also additional length & depth for windage catch on breezy open water?

Any chance you can bring a bathroom scale and actually heft, walk around with and weigh both canoes before making a final decision?

In part for what you are actually comfortable carrying. In part because I don’t know how T-formex weights may range in variation from spec. With same make/model RX canoes it could be several lbs, especially in year to year production variation.

If the T-formex 16 actually weighed more like 68lbs and the 17 closer to spec that might be enough sway my decision. And vice versa; if the 17 tipping the scales at 80lbs, no pun intended, I couldn’t bear it.

The OT Appalachian I had in the shop was nearly double digits overweight.

 

[Glenn MacGrady]

I'd stay with the 16. It's plenty wide (35") and deep (14") to be mainly a one week tripper for two people -- no kids or dogs -- with some occasional two weekers, which will just add some some extra food. It will be much lighter to portage, especially as you age, and will be more amenable to solo.

Quite frankly, I'd opt for a 16' tandem in a much lighter weight composite than T-Formex if that's available.

 

[billconner]

Reading through again, I change to sticking with 16. Worst case, long tandem trip you might have to layover once in a great while that you wouldn't in 17. You'll enjoy the 10 pounds more than any regret of that unplanned layover.

 

[Canotrouge]

If there is no reall white water where you plan on tripping I would ditch the plastic and get something lighter stiffer faster that will last longer! It would be easy to find a 16-17 foot tripping canoe in a tough layup that will weight less than 65lbs, for exemple I paddle à Hellman Slocan in “Duratuff” and that boat get abused on class II-III whitewater on trips, up and down river and creeks, it can carry a 1000lbs with ease and can be paddled solo somewhat well, better loaded than empty! The boat fully outfitted is 65lbs and it is a 17’9” canoe!!

 

[billconner]

Except the OP has already committed to the Esquif for around $2000 I'd guess and the Slocan seems to be around $2500. We don't know what kind of water they plan to be in - Churchill? Do the portages you see in your future allow wheels?

 

[PaddlingPitt]

A few years ago, Kathleen and I paddled the Paull River (yes, it has two ls), a very popular trip out of Missinipe, and part of the Churchill River system. A drop-and-pool experience. Many portages, virtually all of which were through dense blowdown. Wheels would have been useless. But a chainsaw would have been very helpful! Maybe someone like mem has cleared the ports since then.

 

[BirchBeer]

Yeah that canoe has sailed. Money has traded hands for the Esquif and I'm seeing it as a forgiving canoe for folks who are learning and haven't really dialed in a tripping style. I do have an affinity for running whitewater, but very little experience doing it in a canoe.

The outfitters in the Churchill River area use them in their fleets. The Churchill River area doesn't seem to be known a place that has wheel friendly portages. Apparently there are some pull over racks in places.

A composite canoe may be in our future once we have learned more about how we want to canoe trip.

 

[BirchBeer]

Hellman Canoes! So many canoe manufacturers! As far as I know Clipper, Swift, Novacraft, and Esquif are what we have available locally and the stocks as of now are very low for this spring.

 

[Guest]

Hellman Canoes! So many canoe manufacturers! As far as I know Clipper, Swift, Novacraft, and Esquif are what we have available locally and the stocks as of now are very low for this spring.

Saskatchewan-ian you may see more west coast boats than paddlers back east. Hellman builds fine canoes, as does Clipper.

Having already paid/committed to a T-formex Esquif Prospector, if you have the chance to actually weight the 16’ and 17’ versions, please let us know the tale of the scale.

The T-formex square stern Esquif Cargo that came through the shop was speced at 95lbs. It was closer to 110lbs. It did have an extra seat, but that ain’t 15lbs.

Not dissing Esquif, but in developing a new replacement RX material I would expect some weight variations, especially in earlier T-formex builds.

 

[BirchBeer]

Mike McCrea I'll see if I can get the weights of both those boats as it would be really interesting to know.

 

[Jim Dodd]

Maybe a different boat ? Something light in 17,' would fill your bill better ?
It's no fun portaging a heavy boat, nor is it fun to see water splash over the gunnels of a fully loaded small canoe.

I'm a fan of 17' for a tripping tandem.

 

[ppine]

I would opt for the 17 footer only if there is no 18 footer.

 

[BWCA66]

Prospector is a pretty universal design, most manufacturers make one. I love the 16' Merrimack one, stated load is 900 lbs and I can tell you the more weight in it the better the performance. This design was made for carrying a load so pushing it closer to it's capacity should not be an issue.

 

[Canotrouge]

Saskatchewan-ian you may see more west coast boats than paddlers back east. Hellman builds fine canoes, as does Clipper.

Having already paid/committed to a T-formex Esquif Prospector, if you have the chance to actually weight the 16’ and 17’ versions, please let us know the tale of the scale.

The T-formex square stern Esquif Cargo that came through the shop was speced at 95lbs. It was closer to 110lbs. It did have an extra seat, but that ain’t 15lbs.

Not dissing Esquif, but in developing a new replacement RX material I would expect some weight variations, especially in earlier T-formex builds.

You also have to be careful because T-former as more than variation in weight, variations in stiffness(or softness) and that can be really bad, when your new canoe after a season or two start oil canning it really suck!!