What are the best river and inland lake canoes of all time?

[dutchlennart]

In short there are a few sentences that keep comming back in this kind of questions
1 a canoe is better then no canoe

The prefered amount of canoes is for many n + 1.

Many ( english) canoeists will try to convice a prospector is the best canoe.

Next will be a debate over what is a prospector what material should it be what length what brand is best.

Next stop is a debate over solo or tandem boats where many try to proof that the boat they own is the best.

My answer is most of the times a number of questions.
Where you do paddle for what lenght of time?
Do you want to go fast and put the efford in and take the downside that then your canoe is not good in big winds/ whitewater or waves...

What can you put on your car or trailer/ carry to the put in / more important the way back.

Budget?

Where are you on this planet?
I can/do dream of a savage river harmony , but spending i think 3 k on transport and taxes. No thanks

I can rave about the great boats of Frame canoe. Getting one to the us. It will be for many / all to much hassle and who wants the added 3k for transport/takes. Not to mention when you live in Brazil/Kazachstan or....

So in general
A tandem between 15 and 18 with a not to flat or rounded bottom, a bit of rocker, will be good enough for many.

14 15 × 28 ish as a solo with samish shape will be fine.

 

[RBourg]

I think the leading post was as stated that this is a "just for fun" topic and not meant to be controversial but merely informative about what you might like in a canoe for camping, tripping or traveling.

 

[tketcham]

What are the best river and inland lake canoes of all time?​

[Assuming you're including some whitewater capability but not difficult whitewater, Class 3+ and up.]

Tandem: Clipper Prospector 17 for a combination of rivers and lakes.
Why? I've paddled this canoe in all kinds of conditions and it always did what it needed to do. Not great at anything but it can do just about anything.
Solo: Really depends on paddler weight and ability, but a Clipper Prospector 14 wouldn't be a bad choice for an all-around canoe.
Why? It's a short version of their 17 footer and I expect it'd be similarly capable; they have nearly identical length-to-width ratios. It's a tall canoe for a solo; you'd need to keep some weight in it. Added: And, a lot would depend on paddler weight and abilities.

 

[eckilson]

The interesting thing about these kinds of posts is that they are subjective. Each of us sets the criteria to determine what is "best". Your criteria will be different than mine, and that's the fun.

For example, one of the last boats that I could ever imagine myself paddling solo is a 14' Prospector as tketcham recommended. But I just looked up the specs of the Clipper, and it is a nice boat. A little wider and a little deeper than my Wildfire, but it would be nice to have a little more freeboard and load carrying capacity. I can definitely see myself paddling that boat.

 

[tketcham]

The interesting thing about these kinds of posts is that they are subjective. Each of us sets the criteria to determine what is "best". Your criteria will be different than mine, and that's the fun.

I wasn't going to post anything because the OP is such an open-ended question, especially the "of all time" factor. And did it mean a canoe that can do both lakes and rivers or are they separate categories? Anyway, after RBourg's comment I thought about having one canoe that could do both. I don't have the Clipper Prospector 17 anymore because I stopped paddling whitewater sections and the DuraFlex layup was getting a bit heavy for me to load and portage. But in a lighter layup I might still own that canoe; it's a great all-around canoe. If I was still doing river trips I'd love to try a Clipper Prospector 14 solo because it's only 29" wide, that's a good width for solo paddling and plenty of depth for dryness.

 

[ABT]

I'd love to try a Clipper Prospector 14 solo out because it's only 28" wide, that's a nice width for solo paddling and plenty of depth for dryness.

Do you know anyone who’s paddled one? Clippers simply don’t exist at all around my area, but the P14 seems like an odd case on paper. I know rocker in different manufacturers is not comparable, but I have read several places the clipper p14 “has a reputation as a good whitewater boat”, but I have never actually come across a true first hand account. The Clipper website even says it’s good through class III, and you can get it with a saddle/pedestal, but the rocker spec at 1.5” seems just super low compared to other whitewater canoes, even if not measured exactly the same way. Every picture I’ve seen of one has been on a lake, and I’ve found two videos, also in lake conditions. Doesn’t really seem like a competitor to the similarly sized Esquif vertige/vertige x, or a Caption, etc, but they almost seem to market it that way with the whitewater focus. Is it just a very small “tripper” that leans a little more moving water, or is it truly way more responsive than the rocker would suggest, warranting a pedestal and thigh straps? I haven’t been able to figure that boat out.

 

[lowangle al]

Being WW capable, doesn't make it a WW playboat like a Caption. But I think the 15 inch depth and high chines would make it capable of even C3.

 

[tketcham]

Do you know anyone who’s paddled one? Clippers simply don’t exist at all around my area, but the P14 seems like an odd case on paper.

I don't know anyone personally but I've heard it's fairly capable in whitewater. It's not a playboat though, it's intended for handling fast moving sections of river carrying a load. It's an all-around canoe, designed to be able to cover long stretches of flat water and not have to portage around every whitewater drop. More rocker makes it less efficient to paddle lakes, less rocker makes it more efficient but less maneuverable in whitewater. Compromises can make for great all-around canoes. I paddled the tandem version and if the Clipper P14 handles anything close to its bigger sibling (size differences aside) it should do fairly well if paddled conservatively through Class 3. I'd probably want to install a splash deck though; the P17 wouldn't have faired as well in big waves without a full cover. Doable, but taking on water just bogs things down having to drain the boat.

 

[Steve in Idaho]

I mentioned before that I got a chance to paddle the Swift Prospector 14. I was very pleased with the way it handled, and came away thinking I would be confident with it on up to class 2- with a tripping load. I don't doubt that the Clipper version would be just as competent, if not more so - although not quite as light. And Clipper's kevlar layup may not be state of the art, but I'm very pleased with that on my Solitude. Compared to my other kevlar canoes, I consider it an expedition grade layup.

 

[tketcham]

I don't doubt that the Clipper version would be just as competent, if not more so - although not quite as light. And Clipper's kevlar layup may not be state of the art, but I'm very pleased with that on my Solitude. Compared to my other kevlar canoes, I consider it an expedition grade layup.

It'd be interesting comparing the Clipper and Swift versions of the P14 in a range of water conditions. And I wonder if James van Nostrand and David Yost ever got to talk about canoes?

Clipper builds solid canoes that last; they can be just a bit heavier for it though.

 

[ABT]

Wow I missed a lot of responses- busy day at work today.

Being WW capable, doesn't make it a WW playboat like a Caption. But I think the 15 inch depth and high chines would make it capable of even C3.

True, but pedestals and thigh straps aren’t very common on non-playboats (just in general, I know there are exceptions). The 15” depth is a great feature of the boat IMO, but again not common on all-rounder type boats with less than 2” of rocker. If less dedicated to WW, generally wind catching area is a bigger concern. Not bad per se, again just odd specs on paper.

I don't know anyone personally but I've heard it's fairly capable in whitewater.

Same here, just not 100% sure what it means. Fairly capable might mean “pretty darn capable” or “just ok, but even that’s surprising given the low rocker”. I’d just really like to hear what someone who’s paddled one would compare it to.

It's not a playboat though, it's intended for handling fast moving sections of river carrying a load. It's an all-around canoe, designed to be able to cover long stretches of flat water and not have to portage around every whitewater drop…Compromises can make for great all-around canoes. I paddled the tandem version and if the Clipper P14 handles anything close to its bigger sibling (size differences aside) it should do fairly well if paddled conservatively through Class 3.

I agree that’s probably the intent of the design, it’s just very different than a lot of other boats that also aim at that criteria: SRT, Supernova, Phoenix, Dragonfly15, Rendezvous, Guide, etc, etc. I feel like those boats have a lot more in common with each other than they do this P14. Compromises can be great, but it’s a lot narrower and shorter, and lower rockered, so ostensibly it can’t carry as much and is less maneuverable, but also catches more wind as it’s deeper. Again, just seems like it has odd specs on paper. The very little I can find makes it sound like it’s a great boat though. My suspicion is that it actually paddles like it has more rocker, and that the odd specs boil down to just an extreme difference in how it is measured in this design. If for instance it’s actually more similar to a deeper, more durable original Dragonfly, it would be quite a boat.

I mentioned before that I got a chance to paddle the Swift Prospector 14. I was very pleased with the way it handled, and came away thinking I would be confident with it on up to class 2- with a tripping load. I don't doubt that the Clipper version would be just as competent, if not more so - although not quite as light.

I was impressed with the Swift P14 as well, and I felt like its rocker was also a little bit misleading. I hear 1” of rocker and think Bell Magic, Wenonah Prism, etc. and it was surprisingly maneuverable. I think the depth is awfully shallow for anything approaching class II wave trains unless you are very very careful with your lines, which would erode my confidence in it some. I agree the Clipper should be better, and more durable, if heavier. Depends on stability some too though, and the 4” width difference between the two is very significant. Again it would be awesome to hear from someone who’s paddled the Clipper for some firsthand info. I’d love to hear it’s rocker is misleading as well.

Clipper builds solid canoes that last; they can be just a bit heavier for it though.

I think that’s one of the best parts of the Clipper boats. I’m definitely in the minority, but I’ll always take more durability/longevity over a few pounds weight savings. There’s a video on the Clipper site of a guy just wailing on a duraflex boat with a sledgehammer. I can’t see a Swift, Expedition Kevlar or otherwise, coming out as well. I finally saw a couple Clippers in person last November at an Outdoor Expo (not the P14 unfortunately) and I was very impressed with the build quality. It just made me more intrigued about the P14…

Anyone interested in a group buy and then round robin testing? Could post impressions in the same thread, do side by side comparisons to different boats, and we could raffle it off to a participant after everyone’s done. There’s a brand new one for sale on Facebook Marketplace in Montana for $2000. 10 takers and it would be $200 apiece for a guaranteed chance to test it, and a chance to own it when done, maybe cheaper if we can get it for less. Might also be able to reach out to Clipper for a deal instead and get one shipped to the first person on the list. Logistics will be a challenge for sure, but it may be possible. Could maybe see if Glenn or a trusted longstanding member might be interested in being a neutral money holder and raffle drawer. Any interest? If so I’ll start a separate thread to talk more about the possibility/difficulties.

 

[Steve in Idaho]

There’s a brand new one for sale on Facebook Marketplace in Montana for $2000

I've been watching that one for awhile. It's just outside a long day's drive from me. Otherwise, I would have been asking for a test paddle already.

 

[scoutergriz]

Wow I missed a lot of responses- busy day at work today.



True, but pedestals and thigh straps aren’t very common on non-playboats (just in general, I know there are exceptions). The 15” depth is a great feature of the boat IMO, but again not common on all-rounder type boats with less than 2” of rocker. If less dedicated to WW, generally wind catching area is a bigger concern. Not bad per se, again just odd specs on paper.



Same here, just not 100% sure what it means. Fairly capable might mean “pretty darn capable” or “just ok, but even that’s surprising given the low rocker”. I’d just really like to hear what someone who’s paddled one would compare it to.



I agree that’s probably the intent of the design, it’s just very different than a lot of other boats that also aim at that criteria: SRT, Supernova, Phoenix, Dragonfly15, Rendezvous, Guide, etc, etc. I feel like those boats have a lot more in common with each other than they do this P14. Compromises can be great, but it’s a lot narrower and shorter, and lower rockered, so ostensibly it can’t carry as much and is less maneuverable, but also catches more wind as it’s deeper. Again, just seems like it has odd specs on paper. The very little I can find makes it sound like it’s a great boat though. My suspicion is that it actually paddles like it has more rocker, and that the odd specs boil down to just an extreme difference in how it is measured in this design. If for instance it’s actually more similar to a deeper, more durable original Dragonfly, it would be quite a boat.



I was impressed with the Swift P14 as well, and I felt like its rocker was also a little bit misleading. I hear 1” of rocker and think Bell Magic, Wenonah Prism, etc. and it was surprisingly maneuverable. I think the depth is awfully shallow for anything approaching class II wave trains unless you are very very careful with your lines, which would erode my confidence in it some. I agree the Clipper should be better, and more durable, if heavier. Depends on stability some too though, and the 4” width difference between the two is very significant. Again it would be awesome to hear from someone who’s paddled the Clipper for some firsthand info. I’d love to hear it’s rocker is misleading as well.



I think that’s one of the best parts of the Clipper boats. I’m definitely in the minority, but I’ll always take more durability/longevity over a few pounds weight savings. There’s a video on the Clipper site of a guy just wailing on a duraflex boat with a sledgehammer. I can’t see a Swift, Expedition Kevlar or otherwise, coming out as well. I finally saw a couple Clippers in person last November at an Outdoor Expo (not the P14 unfortunately) and I was very impressed with the build quality. It just made me more intrigued about the P14…

Anyone interested in a group buy and then round robin testing? Could post impressions in the same thread, do side by side comparisons to different boats, and we could raffle it off to a participant after everyone’s done. There’s a brand new one for sale on Facebook Marketplace in Montana for $2000. 10 takers and it would be $200 apiece for a guaranteed chance to test it, and a chance to own it when done, maybe cheaper if we can get it for less. Might also be able to reach out to Clipper for a deal instead and get one shipped to the first person on the list. Logistics will be a challenge for sure, but it may be possible. Could maybe see if Glenn or a trusted longstanding member might be interested in being a neutral money holder and raffle drawer. Any interest? If so I’ll start a separate thread to talk more about the possibility/difficulties.

Actually there are plenty of videos of Bill swift jr wailing away on their new layups with a sledgehammer too, and a couple of years ago I had the opportunity to do the same on a roughly 12x 24" sample piece at one of the outdoor shows- I beat on it on a flat rock, a pointed chunk of granite, and a piece of heavy branch. I'm not exactly small (over 200lbs), and even putting my full body weight behind a 5 lb club hammer, the worst I could do was put a small crease in it on the sharp granite, I also tried snapping it with my buddy standing on one edge and i managed to bend it all the way to his calves with no cracking or creasing.
the point i'm trying to make is that virtually every major builder has at least one very high strength, virtually indestructible layup in their stable...

 

[ABT]

Actually there are plenty of videos of Bill swift jr wailing away on their new layups with a sledgehammer too, and a couple of years ago I had the opportunity to do the same on a roughly 12x 24" sample piece at one of the outdoor shows- I beat on it on a flat rock, a pointed chunk of granite, and a piece of heavy branch. I'm not exactly small (over 200lbs), and even putting my full body weight behind a 5 lb club hammer, the worst I could do was put a small crease in it on the sharp granite, I also tried snapping it with my buddy standing on one edge and i managed to bend it all the way to his calves with no cracking or creasing.
the point i'm trying to make is that virtually every major builder has at least one very high strength, virtually indestructible layup in their stable...

My biggest concern with the Swift layup is the foam core and ribs, which are notably absent in all of the videos. Normally in the Swift videos it’s Bill hitting a flat sample of layup (minus foam core) on a flat granite surface, with a rubber mallet, like this one (at around the 3:30 mark):

They (Swift) are dedicated to being the lightest around, which is admirable, but there’s no getting around the fact that other manufacturers use more layers and no foam core. Maybe those layers are overkill for other manufacturers and it’s extra weight for no reason, but I personally think they’re still likely more durable. That’s not to say Swift is bad, I’m 100% sure they’re Exp. Kevlar is plenty strong for 95% of what I’d do with it, and I will likely buy one at some point. They’re just very nice boats. But I do think the Clipper is more durable and I would be less hesitant to abuse it. The video below from Clipper, when compared to the Swift video has some major differences which give me the impression the Clipper is tougher. Just my personal opinion, others may feel differently. Definitely a weight penalty though on the Clipper, and for most people the lighter layup Swift is more desirable and plenty tough.

 

[scoutergriz]

My biggest concern with the Swift layup is the foam core and ribs, which are notably absent in all of the videos. Normally in the Swift videos it’s Bill hitting a flat sample of layup (minus foam core) on a flat granite surface, with a rubber mallet, like this one (at around the 3:30 mark):

They (Swift) are dedicated to being the lightest around, which is admirable, but there’s no getting around the fact that other manufacturers use more layers and no foam core. Maybe those layers are overkill for other manufacturers and it’s extra weight for no reason, but I personally think they’re still likely more durable. That’s not to say Swift is bad, I’m 100% sure they’re Exp. Kevlar is plenty strong for 95% of what I’d do with it, and I will likely buy one at some point. They’re just very nice boats. But I do think the Clipper is more durable and I would be less hesitant to abuse it. The video below from Clipper, when compared to the Swift video has some major differences which give me the impression the Clipper is tougher. Just my personal opinion, others may feel differently. Definitely a weight penalty though on the Clipper, and for most people the lighter layup Swift is more desirable and plenty tough.

there are no ribs because it was found in tests that they caused a stiff spot that actually led to more cracks, and the football is actually laid on top of the structural part of the hull and glassed over, it's not actually part off the structural hull, it's there to stiffen the hull without having a hard edge like a rib does, and to prevent excessive flexing or oil-canning. Years ago john Winters did extensive testing to come up with the strongest and lightest layups without compromising on key areas

 

[Steve in Idaho]

there are no ribs because it was found in tests that they caused a stiff spot that actually led to more cracks, and the football is actually laid on top of the structural part of the hull and glassed over, it's not actually part off the structural hull, it's there to stiffen the hull without having a hard edge like a rib does, and to prevent excessive flexing or oil-canning. Years ago john Winters did extensive testing to come up with the strongest and lightest layups without compromising on key areas

Does the foam core in the floor not also have the same hard edge?

Not that I consider it a deal breaker.
But given the choice on a river canoe, I think I prefer layups without foam core. I've been impressed with the Ultralight Kevlar layup on my Clipper Solitude, which actually shows to be more robust than a flatwater canoe needs to be IMO. The S glass skin layer probably has something to do with that.

The P14 in the same layup is 37 lbs. Not my definition of ultralight either, but I wouldn't be afraid to take it down any class 2+ I've been on - and the price is more attractive.

Money no object - I'd still take the Swift if they handle the same. But I doubt that they do. Comparing dimensions (which obviously don't tell the whole story) suggests that the Clipper is intended to be more whitewater oriented than the Swift. But I wouldn't even bet on that proving out without paddling both back to back.

Near as I can tell from a distance.... I'd probably be happy with either one.

 

[RBourg]

Steve,
I do not see any hard defined edge inside of the Swift layups like I have seen in Wenonah designs. Also, although there are undoubtably many who paddle Swift canoes in whitewater, in my world rivers and whitewater are not one in the same and boulders are almost as rare as whitewater itself.
From the land of swamps and cypress knees our primary concern is that the water is commonly shallow and these waters do contain some underwater hazards with my biggest fear being metal poles or pipes where duck blinds once existed.

 

[Steve in Idaho]

Steve,
I do not see any hard defined edge inside of the Swift layups like I have seen in Wenonah designs. Also, although there are undoubtably many who paddle Swift canoes in whitewater, in my world rivers and whitewater are not one in the same and boulders are almost as rare as whitewater itself.
From the land of swamps and cypress knees our primary concern is that the water is commonly shallow and these waters do contain some underwater hazards with my biggest fear being metal poles or pipes where duck blinds once existed.

I wonder if Swift is using something more like what Kaz did in my Coho. Mine was the first boat he did after switching from foam whatever he was using before to some higher tech honeycomb like material that I forget the name of. It also shows no hard edge or lip. Very strong stuff. It's taken some hard hits with no damage other than scratches.

 

[gumpus]

I wonder if Swift is using something more like what Kaz did in my Coho. Mine was the first boat he did after switching from foam to some higher tech honeycomb like material that I forget the name of. It also shows no hard edge or lip. Very strong stuff. It's taken some hard hits with no damage other than scratches.

I thought Swift foam cores were "poured in"...at least that's what I heard a long time ago. It's hard to keep up with Swift lay-ups. My 2011 Keewaydin 15 is Guide Fusion (and not light) so I assume it's their expedition lay-up for the time. While there's no visual indication of a foam core in my 2 Swifts or the 2 I owned in the past, my Kee15 has some dents in the core from pulling a loaded boat over a tree (and it ended up bouncing). Depending on your use I think the foam cores are indeed a potential liability; my Kevlar Fusion Osprey was lifted up by a submerged metal object that scratched the gelcoat deeply but fortunately the gelcoat gave just enough protection that time. I once bought a used Magic from a guy that planned to buy a Hemlock Kestrel partly because it does not use a foam core.

 

[scoutergriz]

Does the foam core in the floor not also have the same hard edge?

Not that I consider it a deal breaker.
But given the choice on a river canoe, I think I prefer layups without foam core. I've been impressed with the Ultralight Kevlar layup on my Clipper Solitude, which actually shows to be more robust than a flatwater canoe needs to be IMO. The S glass skin layer probably has something to do with that.

The P14 in the same layup is 37 lbs. Not my definition of ultralight either, but I wouldn't be afraid to take it down any class 2+ I've been on - and the price is more attractive.

Money no object - I'd still take the Swift if they handle the same. But I doubt that they do. Comparing dimensions (which obviously don't tell the whole story) suggests that the Clipper is intended to be more whitewater oriented than the Swift. But I wouldn't even bet on that proving out without paddling both back to back.

Near as I can tell from a distance.... I'd probably be happy with either one.

of the seven I had, not one of them had a hard edge, the foam all tapered down to nothing. And while not recommended, I have run WW multiple times, including boofing off boulders on the Grand, Moon, and French rivers, and even running the Niagara river from the generating station to Queenston