Thoughts on Northstar Polaris or Northstar Boreas?

[Glenn MacGrady]

I assume the Northstar Polaris hull is simply a slightly stretched version of the Bell Northstar hull. One reason I assume this is that the webpage description of the Polaris says: "Skilled paddlers raved about the performance of its predecessor and we named our company after it."

The second and convincing reason is that, other than three inches more of LOA, all the geometric specs of the Northstar Polaris (beam, rocker, sheerline) as well as the load range are exactly the same as those of the Bell Northstar (catalog HERE). The displacements at the 2", 3", 4" and 5" waterlines differ by an inconsquential 10 lbs. because of the three additional inches of length. The overhead photos of the two canoes show a foam football floor of a very similar shape.

(This is rank speculation but, to create the Polaris, Northstar may have extended the Bell Northstar canoe LOA by three inches simply to avoid a (frivolous) "copying" claim by ORC, which had bought the Bell company assets and molds in 2006. ORC later sold to Redfeather, which also now markets a tandem that looks like the Bell Northstar and Northstar Polaris.)

The 31" waterline of the Polaris is also touted as a feature allowing solo paddling of the hull: "The Polaris is the narrowest of our tandems, making it an ideal canoe to paddle solo from a center seat."

In sum, I suspect the paddling characteristics of the Northstar Polaris are the same as the Bell Northstar, which sometimes can be found used at prices far less than a new composite build.

Except: The weights of the Northstar Polaris layups are less than the Bell Northstar weights, which makes me wonder how, since Northstar uses wet bagging instead of resin infusion, which is how Swift, Savage River, Placid, and (defunct) Colden produce such lightweight canoes. Another obvious way to lighten, of course, would be to use less cloth than Bell did. I have no idea whether Northstar does that. What they seem to do, however, is to eliminate gel coat (both colored and clear) in favor of skin-coated hulls. That will save weight but subject the vinylester resin to UV degradation.

To avoid degradation of their proprietary epoxy/vinylester resin, Swift (and Savage River) can apply for a price something Swift calls UV shield (and Savage River calls clear coat), which in my lingo I interpret as a clear UV protective coating that is much thinner and hence much lighter than the classic clear gel coat that Bell put on its layups.

Just some more info I've dug up, as the history of these DY canoes interests me.

 

[Steve in Idaho]

...I want a tandem that steers well from the stern because my wife will be of no help in that regard.

I identify with that. Another reason for the Malecite. I know it's not been discussed in this thread, but this old Mad River classic is most definitely a rear-steer tandem.

 

[tketcham]

I assume the Northstar Polaris hull is simply a slightly stretched version of the Bell Northstar hull. One reason I assume this is that the webpage description of the Polaris says: "Skilled paddlers raved about the performance of its predecessor and we named our company after it."

That was my take on it. Your link to the Bell catalog is a nice resource and the specifications for the Northstar do strongly suggest that the Polaris is basically the same canoe.

As for layups, I'm less concerned about durability and UV degradation than I used to be. The canoe won't be used on rocky rivers and won't be left on the roof of the car for extended periods or left outside. It should last a long, long time.

Just some more info I've dug up, as the history of these DY canoes interests me.

DY and the other modern canoe designers. It would make a fascinating read.

 

[Glenn MacGrady]

I identify with that. Another reason for the Malecite. I know it's not been discussed in this thread, but this old Mad River classic is most definitely a rear-steer tandem.

The Malecite may not meet the lightweight objectives of the OP, @tketcham.

Many years ago, when I was in the market for a composite tandem, I test paddled three 16'-6" canoes (among others): the Mad River Malecite, Bell Northstar and Wenonah Solo Plus. At the time, I was not nearly as obsessed with weight as I later became.

None of the three appealed to me as a solo canoe because I thought they were too long and too hard tracking. I've always liked more maneuverable solos.

None of the three appealed to me as tandem canoes either, mainly because they seemed too narrow, too tender and too lacking in capacity for the kind of tandem paddling and tripping I was doing in those days, often with a child or newbie as the bow paddler. I bought a 17'-6" Kevlar Swift Winisk from Dave Curtis instead. It was and still is a cutting edge asymmetrical design, much more capacious than the three 16-6ers, better in whitewater, probably faster, but still a tad tender on initial stability for some companions. About 54 lbs.

(I can still lift it because most of the wood has evaporated.)

Nothing's perfect. That's why we need multiple canoes . . . and reincarnation.

 

[gumpus]

The Malecite may not meet the lightweight objectives of the OP, @tketcham.

Many years ago, when I was in the market for a composite tandem, I test paddled three 16'-6" canoes (among others): the Mad River Malecite, Bell Northstar and Wenonah Solo Plus. At the time, I was not nearly as obsessed with weight as I later became.

None of the three appealed to me as a solo canoe because I thought they were too long and too hard tracking. I've always liked more maneuverable solos.

None of the three appealed to me as tandem canoes either, mainly because they seemed too narrow, too tender and too lacking in capacity for the kind of tandem paddling and tripping I was doing in those days, often with a child or newbie as the bow paddler. I bought a 17'-6" Kevlar Swift Winisk from Dave Curtis instead. It was and still is a cutting edge asymmetrical design, much more capacious than the three 16-6ers, better in whitewater, probably faster, but still a tad tender on initial stability for some companions. About 54 lbs.

(I can still lift it because most of the wood has evaporated.)

Nothing's perfect. That's why we need multiple canoes . . . and reincarnation.

I'd agree that the Solo Plus is hard tracking but strongly disagree about the Bell Northstar. I remember one afternoon with friends where we spent hours swapping between a Starfire and Northstar both tandem and solo. Basic conclusion is that both do both surprisingly well, but Starfire excels vs Northstar as a solo and vice versa tandem. One of many things I loved about the Northstar is that (per punkinhead's comment) the boat could easily be driven and controlled by either tandem paddler if one person stopped paddling (so for punkinhead I think the Ursa Minor mentioned by NikonF5user is one very solid choice). My Northstar never failed to respond eagerly to an input from either end even in strong wind or current. I remember one post saying that a boat may lose a little rocker compared to another boat that's used as a plug and that's how Polaris feels to me compared to the Bell Northstar; Northstar a little more playful and Polaris tracks a little better but to me both are approximately perfect as a compromise.

I like punkinhead's comments about small differences. Statistics aside I think small differences may be huge to some folks and irrelevant to others.

 

[Steve in Idaho]

The Malecite may not meet the lightweight objectives of the OP,

Probably not. Mine is right at 50 lbs. Even the aluminum railed version is only a few pounds lighter, IIRC. I can still lift it by myself but prefer not to. Since my wife isn't interested in overnight canoe trips, it's still near perfect for the day trips we do. At our size though, it would easily handle us with a week's worth of gear and provisions.

 

[tketcham]

One of many things I loved about the Northstar is that (per punkinhead's comment) the boat could easily be driven and controlled by either tandem paddler if one person stopped paddling. ... My Northstar never failed to respond eagerly to an input from either end even in strong wind or current. ... Northstar a little more playful and Polaris tracks a little better but to me both are approximately perfect as a compromise.

That's what I'm looking for. (Well, it's an advantage to what I'm looking for.) We want to learn some tandem freestyle moves (I know better than to try and teach her myself) and the Polaris, while not a Savage River Harmony, Loon Works Duet, Colden Starfire, or any number of other nimble canoes, it seems like a fairly agile canoe given its pedigree. I'm encouraging my partner to project the fun she's having with solo freestyle into the bow of a lively tandem canoe. Many of the solo freestyle maneuvers are done from the forward (bow) quadrants so it should be a fairly easy adjustment. She's already starting to do bow axles and wedges with our Northstar so learning how to better control the canoe from the bow would not only be fun but also helpful in tricky water conditions. Plus, it would motivate me to be a better stern paddler. I watch accomplished tandem paddlers with a bit of awe and envy.

Added: Just to be clear, we have no ambitions of becoming freestyle performers. The mention of freestyle was simply to convey the basic maneuvers inherent with freestyle instruction, skills that make canoeing in general that much more fun. As has been discussed in other threads, perhaps functional freestyle needs another term.

 

[Glenn MacGrady]

That's what I'm looking for. We want to learn some tandem freestyle moves

Tom, you have significantly changed your tune since the OP. There, we had "aging canoeists" looking to shave weight from their Curtis Northstar and asking whether the NS Polaris is less stable than the Curtis Northstar.

We still don't actually know the answer to the stability question. I'll guess the Curtis is more stable because its beam is a half to a full inch greater than the Polaris at waterline, max and gunwales; plus it's a significantly deeper canoe that is rated for a greater load capacity than the Polaris even though shorter.

But are we now talking about a canoe that can do elegant tangents?

If so, is an asymmetrically rockered combo/compromise tandem the best option?

What tandems are owned by instructors and advanced intermediate paddlers at freestyle events? After the 14'-3" Lotus/Wenonah Egret era of Mike Galt, it used to be 15' Loon Works Duets and Bell/Placid/Colden Starfires. Any Bell Northstars or Morningstars, or any Northstar Polaris's, at freestyle events? I don't know.

These questions can all be considered rhetorical.

The Starfire is available from Swift, probably at a lower weight than a Colden or Placid and certainly lower than a Bell.

Back to the forgotten Swift Keewaydin 16. I'd guess it has more stability than the Polaris for exactly the same reasons as the Curtis Northstar, except it doesn't have as much load capacity as the Curtis because of its lower sheerline, though more capacity than the Polaris. Which of the three canoes turns better, I know not.

I consider the Swift Keewaydins I've paddled to have very "predictable" stability with a comfortable and reliable hull reaction feel. Some may consider that a boring hull. Winters' canoes, for example, feel more edgy. The Harold Deal SRT, a solo canoe, has unpredictable stability to many novice and intermediate paddlers.

I just read an old thread here in which Charlie Wilson says something to the effect that Dave Yost learned a lot from the time he designed the Bell Northstar to when he designed the Swift Keewaydin 16, which is why he gave the Kee stepped rocker and an elliptical bottom. I don't know what either of those terms mean. Marketing mumbo jumbo?

I hope someone will test paddle a NS Polaris vs. a Bell Northstar vs. a Curtis Northstar vs. a Swift Keewaydin 16—and tell us what the heck the FINAL ANSWER is.

Wouldn't matter. We'd still have our individual preferences and biases. And disagree. Especially as our minds change with age.

All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages.
— W.S.

 

[tketcham]

Tom, you have significantly changed your tune since the OP.

Not really, I was looking for a lightweight version of our Curtis Northstar and was wondering if the Polaris was as stable. And like l said, we're getting older, but still enjoy "messing about in boats".

But are we now talking about a canoe that can do elegant tangents?

Not at all. Gumpus's comment about steering from the bow/stern brought up another advantage of a shorter, leaner canoe and so I mentioned how that would apply to the Polaris. (See comment above.) It's certainly not a renowned freestyle canoe, though, and we have no expectations of becoming Freestyle performers, even if we owned a Galt Egret or Loon Works Duet. We'd be in the water more than in the canoe.

Back to the forgotten Swift Keewaydin 16.

I haven't forgotten about it, I simply prefer the potential advantages of a longer, slimmer canoe for how we'll be using it the majority of the time. My bias isn't arbitrary but it's a bias nonetheless. I have nothing against the Keewaydin 16, I could easily be happy with one, and if a Kee16 came up for sale at an amazing price I'd be making a phone call in a New York minute.

I hope someone will test paddle a NS Polaris vs. a Bell Northstar vs. a Curtis Northstar vs. a Swift Keewaydin 16—and tell us what the heck the FINAL ANSWER is.

I stopped trying to split hairs and am just going to enjoy paddling a fine canoe, whether it be from Swift, Northstar, Wenonah, Hemlock, Souris, Clipper, etc., etc., etc....

I will be able to comment on the differences between the Curtis Northstar and the Northstar Polaris if I keep the Curtis around for a while.