Thoughts on Northstar Polaris or Northstar Boreas?

As with many aging canoeists, we're considering replacing one of our canoes with something lighter. We have a 18.5' Wenonah Odyssey and a 16' Curtis Northstar and it's tough deciding which to replace because they're both great canoes that complement each other well, and, there's not that much difference in weight, about 3 pounds. But we could shave 15 to 20 pounds off the weight by updating to a lightweight layup.

So, I'm looking for opinions and perspectives on a Northstar Polaris to replace the Curtis Northstar or the Northstar Boreas to replace the Wenonah Odyssey.

Realistically we'd probably get more benefit from replacing our Curtis Northstar because we use it more often and it is a few pounds heavier than the Odyssey. I'm considering the Polaris as a replacement because of its narrow width (31" gunnel/34.5" max) for paddling efficiency and the useable rocker (2.5" bow/1.5" stern) for maneuvering in tight spaces and moving water. Other than the asymmetrical rocker, the Polaris sounds similar to the Curtis Northstar.

But I do wonder about the seaworthiness and stability of the Polaris in comparison to the Northstar. It has similar dimensions but I get the impression that the Polaris has a more rounded hull and is perhaps more tender. We both feel very comfortable being on the water in wind and waves with the Northstar, so is the Polaris comparably stable?

As for the Northstar Boreas, it's nine inches shorter than the Odyssey and has some rocker so should be more maneuverable but still carry a load efficiently, making the Boreas a more versatile canoe. Perhaps we'd take it out and paddle it more than we do the Odyssey.

Any thoughts are appreciated!

PS: The other canoes I've considered are the Swift Keewaydin 16 (35 lbs in Kevlar layup; 33 lbs in carbon!) to replace the Curtis Northstar and the 17' 5" GRB Traveler II (35 lbs!) to replace the Odyssey.

What size are the paddlers? The Polaris is a great hull, but people my size solo it.

Why not consider the Seliga? Although a little shorter it has about the same water line and stem hight as the Boreas so should paddle almost as well. It lacks the tumblehome of the Boreas but probably has better secondary stability. I think that 32 inch beam of the Boreas would make loading and unloading packs a lot harder. It will also make it harder to slide a spare paddle alongside the packs and give you less storage room in general.

The Seliga is slightly lighter, and with those traditional recurved stems has a classic look. They say the tumblehome on the Boreas makes it easier to solo from the center. I don't know why anyone would need to do this when you can paddle from the bow seat backwards and get less yaw and paddle closer to the centerline of the boat.

My Polaris is in IXP which is not common for this hull I think and I have wondered about the layup’s effect on the bottom shape, but mine is a much flatter bottom than I expected. Perhaps blacklite or starlite would be rounder? Stability is great for solo use, or solo with kids, and I have no problem standing in the middle. But for tandem use with two full grown men sitting in the narrower ends, it’s a bit tender I would say. Not terrible, and very doable, although a foot brace in the stern would help a lot. I’ve only paddled it that way a few times in short outings in very calm water, usually it’s paddled solo in rivers or with kids. And when you approach the “optimum maximum weight” listed on the NS website I felt like it did not feel nearly as fast as I expected or glide as well as it did with a lighter load. If you are pretty light paddlers I’d say it would probably be fine for day trips. Maneuverability is good for its length and rocker I think but it’s definitely a compromise hull, not as good at tracking as a lower rocker boat, and not as good at turning as a symmetrical rockered boat. I’ve wished it were a little better at both in different scenarios which actually probably means it’s about right for how I use it. I’ve been pretty happy with it.