Alpacka Raft Lineup

In 2019 Alpacka Raft released a new boat lineup. This review is intended to help clarify the new boat options, and help users select the best model for their needs. I’m only reviewing the models I’ve spent significant time in.

I am an ambassador for Alpacka Raft and am heavily biased in favor of Alpacka boats compared to the other manufacturers. This is due to the quality of build, design, and customer service, as well as my respect for the company culture and ethics.

Alpacka Series

Classic

Best for: Hikers that are not seeking whitewater, or, like me, weren’t seeking whitewater initially, but grew to appreciate technical water.

Sarah Histand, Pelorus River, New Zealand

The original Alpacka boats (Small Alpacka, Medium Yak, Large Llama) have been stripped down and streamlined to sell as the most affordable option. I suspect this is largely to compete with the China-made packrafts now on the market.

These boats are light, durable, and capable. The boat design is appropriate for Class III and IV water, with thigh straps. Thigh strap options are:

  • Alpacka factory retrofit: Backband and straps on used boats for $350. Note that Alpacka does not offer factory-installed straps on new Classics! This is part of their effort to streamline and offer a more affordable (but capable) boat.
  • Install them yourself ($165 + glue for the Alpacka 4-pt, or about the same for AIRE/NRS 2-pt).

I am very attached to having thigh straps, whitewater deck, and a cargo zipper. If I lived in a warmer climate, or sitting in the boat for an hour instead of a day, I would be interested in the self-bailer build.

The Classic boats are more stable than the Wolverine and less stable than the Gnarwhal (below). The Classic is a great option for new boaters.

Expedition

Best for: Remote trips with significant hiking and the possibility of Class III rapids.

The Expedition is listed in the Alpacka Series, because purchasers are likely deciding between the Expedition and Classic. The Expedition is simply a stripped-down Wolverine, with a shorter seat (boat floor becomes less rigid) and optional thigh straps. Without thigh straps, the Expedition is 0.7 (S) – 0.9 (L) lb lighter than the Wolverine.

Expedition vs. Classic

  • Weight: The Classic is ~0.5 lb lighter than the Expedition.
  • Stability: The Classic is more stable than the Expedition.
  • Thigh straps: Easy factory upgrade on Expedition vs. DIY/retrofit on Classic.

For me, the Classic vs. Expedition vs. Wolverine decision comes down to thigh straps. I’m addicted to thigh straps, and I want them for everything, even Class II water. I want the option of at least running ‘backcountry’ straps on remote trips, 3/4″ accessory straps between user-installed foot and thigh tie-downs. Assuming you want straps (you do!) then it becomes a question of minor weight differences.

My solution is to go with the Wolverine, replace the full-length seat and thigh straps with a short seat and accessory straps for remote trips. This is ~equivalent to ordering the Expedition, with thigh-straps, and purchasing the long Wolverine seat as an accessory.

Whitewater Series

Alpackalypse (Discontinued)

Casey Orion, Lava, Grand Canyon

The Alpackalypse had small (9.9″) diameter tubes that gave it a very edgy feel, most similar to a river kayak. The boat was best-suited for experienced kayakers, who appreciated the familiar edginess and roll-ability. With the introduction of the Wolverine, the Alpackalypse has been discontinued.

Gnarwhal

Sarah Tingey, Grand Canyon

Best for: Big-water boaters or less-experienced paddlers seeking a boat that feels safe and stable.

The Gnarwhal is the largest and most stable boat in the Alpacka lineup. The Gnarwhal is ideal for big-water, like the Grand Canyon. The volume is double the Alpackalypse, and the boat can survive pretty much anything you throw at it. The trade-off with large tubes and high-volume is that the Gnarwhal is snow to initiate, and the paddler often feels along for the ride. Fortunately, it is a very forgiving ride.

The Gnarwhal will also appeal to new boaters who have no intention of using it on white water. The boat’s size and stability makes it the most forgiving and safest-feeling craft in the lineup.

Wolverine

Shasta Hood, Buller River, New Zealand

Best for: Creek boaters, playful boaters, and people that want a one-packraft-does-all solution.

The Wolverine combines the best features of the Alpackalypse and Gnarwhal. The intermediate diameter tubes (10.6″ compared to the Gnarwhal’s 11.7″) result in a ~0.4 lb weight saving over the Gnarwhal, and more stability than the Alpackalypse. The Wolverine is less stable than the Classic.

Compared the the Gnarwhal, the Wolverine feels like a bullet. Initiation is easy, and the boat picks up speed quickly, allowing for a very playful nature, including snapping into eddies and boofing ledge drops. I was shocked by how well the boat surfs. The Wolverine will appeal to kayakers and packrafters that want to paddle technical water. The boat is less stable than the Gnarwhal, which, for me, will result in a few more swims, or “roll practice.”

65 Comments

  1. “The boat is less stable than the Gnarwhal, which, for me, will result in a few more swims.”

    I think that should finish with “which makes rolling back up easier”. 🙂

    Like

  2. What are your thoughts on the whitewater deck vs removable whitewater deck. I prefer the idea of the removable but wonder if the zip provides as good a seal and if it is potentially just another thing to go wrong in the back country where simplicity is best.

    Like

    1. I don’t have any personal experience with the removable ww deck. I like the idea of the removable deck, but don’t ever really wish I could remove mine (I like the warmth of the ww deck). The fine-tooth zipper makes me nervous, but I haven’t heard anyone talk about issues with it.

      Like

      1. I had a removable deck on a boat: I never removed it. In 2 years of weekly glacial silt, the zipper always worked. The fine teeth occasionally rub on your hand (not as bad as how the velcro would on the cruiser deck), not significantly annoying. It probably added a little bulk. I found it handy to crack the zipper to flush silt that got tracked in (without dumping water on my head). My girlfriend likes her removable deck for bringing the dog on flat water days. I went with a normal ww deck on my new boat, in case any of that experience is helpful.

        Like

  3. Thanks for the handy comparison guide! What do you think: Does the size of the paddler have an effect on choosing between Gnarwhal and Wolverine? I like the idea of resposive playfull boat but I’m also 186cm and 95kg (Err, 6+ft and 210lb?) and I wonder if Wolverine can handle me with heavier gear (longer remote trips)? And having too white water packrafts might be one too many… 😀

    Like

    1. It does make sense to me that a bigger boater would want to go with the Gnarwhal, and I also suspect that the Gnarwhal feels more nimble to a bigger boater compared to a smaller boater. In other words… you might be getting a more playful experience in the Gnar because you’ve got the mass to boss it around. I paddled with a woman this weekend, she was in a small Gnar, and made it look like a playboat, tons of surfing, nice edging, etc.

      Alpacka lists the max capacity as 350 and 450 lb for Wolv, Gnar, respectively.

      For reference, I’m ~90 kg and the Wolverine doesn’t feel small by any means. However, the lower buoyancy compared to the Gnar is very evident.

      Like

  4. One thing I noticed about the Gnarwhal is that the larger stern drops a bit, and as a result, I find it drags more in REALLY shallow water than the old lineup. Totally worth it, as it paddles so much nicer, but for trips where Id expect lots of shallow creek type paddling, Id probably take my old Llama.

    Like

  5. I am 185 pounds 6’1 and I am deciding between the Gnarwhal and the Wolverine. My roll pretty much sucks right now so I’m not sure I’ll be rolling either. I want to run some whitewater up to class III. Which would you recommend and what size? (I’m mostly legs).

    Like

    1. We are pretty similar in weight/height. Both boats are great. I’d recommend the Gnar if you expect to be on bigger water (high volume), otherwise the Wolverine for the weight savings and more playful hull. I fit Large in both. It is a tight Large, which I like for ww paddling. The Wolv is easier to roll (and easier to tip over). FWIW, I’m really enjoying the Wolv this season, sold my Gnar. But I don’t really do any big water paddling.

      Like

      1. I posted this on one of the other discussion pages before seeing this discussion of the 2019 lineup. It seems more appropriate here:

        I’m 6’0″, 170 lbs but with a very long leg to torso ratio. When I do the “Sit Length” sizing that Alpacka describes on their website, I get a length of 48″. That would put me in the XL size, which would rule out many of Classic and Expedition models. But from the descriptions provided here it sounds like many users in the 6’0-6’1 range fit better in the medium or large boats. Your last commen made it sound like large might indeed be a tight fit for me if I want to be able to stretch out my legs for less technical water.

        I’m eyeing the Gnar or the Expedition/Wolverine (these seem very similar in spec). Intended use is a mix of backcountry river and lake adventures, up to class III whitewater, some bikepacking etc. In essence I’m looking for an all-rounder that will be fun for white water but can also comfortably haul gear when I need it to.

        Like

        1. Hi Paul-
          I think you will be happy with a large, and I’d recommend the Wolv over the Gnar given your weight. The Classic would also be a good option, and the large Classic will feel roomier than the large Wolv.

          Like

  6. Hi Luc,
    I’m an class 4 hard shell lady boater looking to get into packrafting. Choosing between wolverine and gnarwhal. Do folks with boating experience tend to find the wolverine has enough stability for doing big flow AK rivers (eg upper alsek before turnback)? Sounds like wolverine would be more fun on small creeks but I’d love to use it on bigger flows as well.

    Like

    1. Hi Kate- I think you would find the Wolverine to be quite stable given your kayaking experience. It only feels unstable compared to the Gnarwhal but all the packrafts are way more stable than your kayak. If I was exclusively on big water, maybe Gnar, but if not, Wolv. The Wolv is awesome.

      Like

  7. Hi Luc, Thanks for the reviews. I’ve been using a open classic (no straps, no cargo fly which I will give to my wife). I’ve been mostly doing open coastal stuff in the Juneau area where I live and a couple of short rivers with more experience friends. But I want to do more rivers and maybe eventually venture in to whitewater as well as overnight multi-day stuff in Alaska (I live in Juneau). But white water above class II would be less common and class 4 seems way beyond my comfort level. I want get one all around boat. The classic is very stable which has really increased my comfort level pretty quickly. I’m pondering the expedition vs wolverine, gnarwhal, or just getting a classic with a cruiser deck. I have colleagues who just use 6 year old classics with cruiser decks (no straps) even for white water. But you’re starting to sell me on thigh straps as it sounds like they make the day more comfortable regardless. I’m 5′ 9″ and seem to fit okay in my classic Yak ( a bit snug with large boots, plenty of room with water shoes). If I end up doing more rivers but only ~20% includes white water or things like wood to avoid, etc. would it still be worth the thigh straps and whitewater deck vs. cruiser deck and classic (no straps)? Do you think I’d feel stable enough in the smaller tube boats (i.e. expedition, wolverine)? I tend to over pack gear but will have to learn to pare it all down to because of trade offs with the additional weight of the raft, etc. I was leaning toward just going for a gnarwhal since it’s sounds like they can hold up to almost anything and might make me feel more secure as a newbie (with white water). But they are a little heavier and sounds like tighter fitting (vs. classic). But maybe that’s good? Having trouble deciding which model would be best for me. If I switch to thigh straps I”ll practice wet exits and either way I’ll probably take a river class before I get too adventurous. Thanks for the time you spend as an ambassador and for all your efforts to promote conservation (trip to D.C. , etc.). What would you recommend?

    Like

    1. Hi Carl-

      In my opinion… I’d place more priority on thigh straps and cargo zipper than Classic vs. Exp. vs Wolv. vs Gnar. If one of those boats makes better sense in your price range, go for that model. They are all great boats. The Classic (plus DIY thigh straps and Alpacka-installed zip) does 90% of what I want from my boat. The Wolverine is a real treat, and a better boat, but the high performance features might be lost on you as a newer (whitewater) boater.

      I sure like the whitewater deck… drier and warmer, nice features to have in Ak. I’d probably go removable ww before going cruiser.

      -Luc

      Like

  8. Hi Luc, So we put our order in for two Wolverines, thank you for your advice, it really helped ! I am asking about the adjustments you made by purchasing an Expedition seat and attachment kit. I assume you mean DIY for the toggle to hold the seat ? You said it was for longer expeditions. We didn’t add this into our purchase yet, could you go into a little more depth why you did this and how it will help us ?.

    much Thanks,
    Todd and Suuz

    Like

    1. Awesome, you will be psyched!

      When I take my boat on long trips (without whitewater), removing the thigh straps and replacing the long seat with a short seat saves ~1 lb. If that appeals to you, you can order a short seat from Alpacka (“Alpacka Series Seat Bottom w/Toggle”). The seat can be wedged into the boat if you aren’t too worried about swimming and losing it, or you could glue a toggle attachment point to the floor. For the latter, you would need to contact someone at Alpacka to order the toggle attachment. Since that attachment will be under low stress, I’d just attach it with aquaseal.

      https://www.alpackaraft.com/rafting/product/alpacka-series-seats/

      Like

  9. Hi Luc — have you noticed if either the gnarwhal or wolverine get stuck less in shallow water? I’m assuming the big stern on the gnarwal would be worse in shallow water?

    Like

    1. I suspect the Gnarwhal rides a little higher in the water because of the additional buoyancy. I haven’t really noticed much difference in any of the boats I’ve paddled. I use the crab technique to put my weight on the tubes through shallow water, and you can also put a strap under your seat to lift the seat off the floor for more clearance.

      Like

        1. This feels harder to explain than it should… I feed an accessory strap (~4 ft of webbing with a ladder lock) through each of the backband attachment points so that it forms a very loose closed loop. The loop hangs down in the boat, like a swing seat composed of two bands. I try to separate the bands a little bit when I put the inflated seat on top, to help distribute my weight when sitting. Make sense? A pic would be worth all of these words.

          Like

  10. Hey Luc, Thanks for all of this great information. I recently purchased an expedition with removable WW decking, outfitted with thigh-straps and a foot brace. I am eagerly awaiting its delivery. I’m curious if you think the addition of thigh-straps and foot brace will make it a comparable boat to the wolverine for whitewater performance. I’m 6’4″, 180ish. I thought the expedition’s extra 1″ of outside length would provide more weight carrying capacity for a bigger person w/ full backcountry kit. I’m just curious why the expedition isn’t listed as a whitewater model since it has the same hull and tube diameter as the wolverine, especially since you can now order the boat with thigh straps. Also, is it easy to retrofit a whitewater seat in the expedition for front-country missions?

    Thanks!!!

    Like

    1. Hi Mike- I was also confused about why Alpacka didn’t list the Exped as a WW boat. It is a great WW boat. I think you did the right thing, the extra inch will be good. Even so, the boat will probably be a bit short for you. I don’t have room for the foot brace, and I’m 6’1″.

      You can buy a Wolverine seat and just place it in the boat, that’s what I’ve been doing. I intend to glue on an attachment point so that I can attach the seat to the boat, but haven’t got around to it. I’m at risk of losing the seat on a swim, but it has stayed in place so far.

      Like

    2. This is exactly what I’ve been thinking Mike, I too being 6’4” and 180. I just finished my first summer with my Llama on some low class II, one short trip with an x large mountain bike and no room for my feet. I really need a few extra inches but don’t want to sacrifice River ability or performance. The expedition with thigh straps sound like a good idea. And by the way, I like my removable WW deck because I can take it off and throw in kids, dogs, coolers, etc…

      Liked by 1 person

  11. Hi Luc – Such great info, thanks. I also read your latest review of the Expedition. I’m in decision mode right now about which packraft to get. I’ve been borrowing a friends Classic recently for multi-day trips (no hiking). I’m looking to get something a little more performance oriented, which is why I’m looking at the Expedition and the Whitewater series. I’m 5’10, 155lbs, and an intermediate paddler I would say. Definitely not super experienced, but feel relatively comfortable on the river. I live in Oregon and will mostly be paddling Oregon rivers, with occasional trips elsewhere (Idaho, etc.). Some of these rivers, as I’m sure you know, are class III. I haven’t done any hiking trips yet, but could see hiking trips in the future (Chetco, Minam river, etc.)

    My first instinct is to get the Expedition for an all-purpose boat, though I haven’t paddled a smaller tube (10.6 in) alpacka yet, so unsure of stability. The Gnarwhal is a bit intriguing as it sounds like a nice stable/forgiving platform as I progress to a more advanced paddler, but obviously a bit limiting from a hiking perspective, and I’m concerned it may be a big sluggish at my size.

    Based on your experience, any thoughts on Gnarwhal vs Expedition/Wolverine for someone my size, experience level, and plans for river running?

    Thanks…Adam

    Like

    1. Hi Adam-

      You and I are too small for the Gnarwhal, so cross that off your list. If you have an inclination for ‘performance’ then you should get the Wolverine or Expedition. I would make the decision based on how tall you are. In my opinion, the real difference is the extra length in the Exped, which is nice if you wear hiking boots or are doing long scenic floats (class I/II). At 6’1″, the Wolv is a little small for me for that kind of trip. At your height, I’d get the Wolverine. If you end up wanting to do longer hikes, you can buy a shorter seat for the boat, save a little weight there (in addition to leaving the thigh straps and foot brace behind).

      Like

      1. Thanks Luc. In your experience, does the Wolverine seat sleeve get in the way during use when you replace the whitewater seat with the shorter seat for trips with long hikes?

        Like

        1. I can’t speak to that. I opted to go without the sleeve in my… ~Wolverinpedition.

          True, the sleeve might be a bit of an entrapment hazard. Next time I see a boat with one, I’ll evaluate it.

          Like

          1. Gotcha! Ya…the potential entrapment hazard is what came to my mind also. Maybe I’ll just go with the Expedition and get a whitewater seat to add for trips without long hikes. Thanks for the insight.

            Like

          2. I’m demoing a Wolverine at the minute, coming from a WW kayaking background. I can’t really say that the seat sleeve seems to be an entrapment hazard. At the “sit” end of the seat, the sleeve is very tight. I can’t forsee a scenario where you would get stuck. At the foot end, there are little holes, but again, they are small and I can’t see how you would get caught in them. So in summary, and especially compared to the thigh straps, the sleeve wouldn’t worry me at all. And the big advantage is that the seat is absolutely locked in place with that sleeve. I have paddled other rafts where the seat squirms all over the place, which personally hurts my back.

            You say you want something more performance oriented. Not sure if you are from a kayaking background, but I was quite surprised at how nimble the Wolverine is. It does handle massively differently to a hard shell though. I got totally caught out and went for an unintended “wild swim” for the first time in years on some pretty inconsequential water. Unlike a hardshell where as long as you keep the upstream edge up, you are basically fine, I found that leaning the Wolverine results in the risk of a “downstream” capsize by waves hitting the underside and simply knocking you off balance. On the plus side, self rescue was a rather quick affair!

            Like

          3. The entrapment hazard comment is in regards to placeing the short seat in the Wolverine, instead of the long seat that fits snugly in the sleeve. The short seat (stock in the Expedition) has a toggle-style attachment point, the sleeve would be empty.

            I have been frustrated needing to kick my feet free from the long seat a few times, not because of the sleeve but just because of the tight cockpit. It has only been an issue when I’ve worn thick-soled shoes.

            Like

          4. Ah, got you. That isn’t something I have encountered with my shoes over the short test period, but can see the possibility if your feet came out at a strange angle. I guess the biggest risk there would be if the boat folded around something. That said, to me it seems a lower risk than your boots catching on the pin pillar or hull strengthener in a creek boat (which I sometimes find happens when climbing out to scout on awkward rocks).

            Regarding the sleeve and being an entrapment hazard if empty, the front holes would not be big enough to catch anything unless you had really small feet. The main hole that the seat slips into obviously would be big enough, but I am struggling to think of a situation where your legs would end up in it – it comes quite far back: https://photos.app.goo.gl/xyUhFBqk6n5CaNTb8

            I was looking at an Exped vs Wolverine too. Out of interest, you say that you didn’t spec the sleeve – does the Wolverine seat stay put without it? I.e. in general paddling, it doesn’t slip forward, allowing your bottom to slip down the back of the seat (putting a big bend in your lower spine).

            Like

          5. Yeah, the long seat (stock Wolverine) snug-fits into the boat without the sleeve. It has stayed in place during a few swims, but nothing too violent. It has never shifted within the boat during technical paddling (max Class IV).

            Another advantage of the long seat is that it keeps the boat rigid in case a tube rips… it serves as a sort of separate chamber.

            Like

          6. Thanks, that’s good to know, I hadn’t thought about the fact that it acts as additional flotation in the event of an accident; that’s useful though. Certainly I have been fairly happy with the stiffness of the Wolverine, and definitely wondered what difference the short seat would make, so good to know it does make a difference

            Like

  12. Hello Luc san
    Thank you for providing fun and informative instructions/reviews. 
    After reading many of your articles, I have been going back and forth whether to get a Classic or Expedition and it would be highly appreciated if you can give me your thoughts.
    I am 5’8″ 170-180 lb, new to packrafting, several times on kayak years ago (nothing serious, just playing around), and also a recreational surfer.
    I would be using a packraft mostly for mellow cruise on the rivers and lakes but I have a feeling that I would probably be wanting to get into more technical water and also ride waves on the beach where I surf.

    From what I learned from your articles, Classic is more stable so may be better for a newcomer like me, but at the same time, I tend to look for “more playful and responsive” (as you put it) characteristics on things I ride. (bikes, motorcycles)  

    I decided to go with the removable WW deck, thigh strap and cargo fly options.
    With that set-up, prices for Classic and Expedition are virtually the same (as I am planning to ask Alpacka to retrofit the thigh strap attachments instead of DIYing), so the price is not a factor.

    Would it be possible for you to push my back to one way or the other with your expertise and experience?

    Thank you very much. 

    Like

    1. If cost isn’t a factor, get the Wolverine.

      Thigh straps and cargo fly are the important parts… you can’t go wrong if you have those. But the Wolv is a ‘better’ (= more highly evolved) boat.

      Like

  13. 5’9″ female, 125 lb. with wall to foot length of 41 inches. Class II-III paddler. Have paddled non-butt Denali Llama, Feathercraft Bayley 1, Kokopelli Rogue, MRS Alligator 2S. I’m not planning on being a playboater. I like stability and also being able to move quickly when maneuvering. Could be that this will be the boat for day trips, and I’ll continue to use my Rogue for multi-day trips. What do you think? What’s my next boat?

    Like

    1. I don’t think I have enough information. You’ve paddled more boats than me… and it sounds like any of those boats would be fun in Class II/III, stable. The “move quickly” part comes with less stability. I’m not familiar with the Rogue, but it seems like Rogue + thigh straps might be a good all-around option. That said, I think the Alpacka Wolverine is the best packraft available and have no hesitation recommending it to everyone.

      Like

      1. Thanks for the recommendation. I am vacillating between the Wolverine and the Gnarwhal–sorry, forgot to mention that. Trying to decide whether the Gnarwhal will be more boat than I need.
        Cheers, Jill

        Like

  14. Can I get your take on the Caribou? I’ve done ocean kayaking but new to any kind of river rafting. I’m looking for a light craft to take on long multi-day hikes with long lake crossings and a few tame river runs (I don’t see myself chasing much more than class II rapids). I was also drawn to this model as I’m interested in trying to use it on a bike trip or two, though 80% of the time it will be used while just hiking.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Any of the Alpacka line up would accommodate your objectives, including the bike trip or two.

      In my opinion the only real advantage of the Caribou is weight. If you need a light boat, this is a good option. If you don’t need a light boat, the other models will be more comfortable (backband) and warmer (deck). Personally, these differences are enough for me to jump straight to the Alpacka (Classic) series.

      Like

  15. Great site Luc! I’m looking at getting my first packrat. Debating between the Expedition with removable deck (or should I just go WW deck?) and the Gnarwhal. I’ll be doing some bike rafting, skirafting and a few climbing trips and will likely limit myself to class2/3 WW. I’m 6’2, 240lbs and normally paddle Jackson Zen hard boat. Appreciate your thoughts.

    Like

    1. Hi Jay- 240 plus cargo is too much for the Wolv/Exped. It might be too much for the Gnarwhal too. Check the Alpacka page for the suggested weight limit. Hopefully, you will be in range for a big Gnar!

      Like

  16. Hey Luc! So jumping in here as I’m finally ready to upgrade from a Kokopeli to an Alpacka raft. I have only been packrafting for about a year and I’m not a super technical paddler at this time, but I def want to grow into charging bigger water. Last spring I easily ran some very short class 4 rapids, but it was low water and likely they were more like 3’s for that reason. I have been going back and forth between the expedition and the wolverine. I want the most versatile boat possible and I plan on hiking with my boat (the Koko is so darn bulky). With backcountry in mind, up until reading your post, I was thinking the expedition would be my jam. But I am only 5’4 and about 135lbs, and from what I see here, it sounds like your biggest argument for the expedition is for taller people who may need more room? I do like fast and light so if I were to get the wolverine I think I would likely get the expedition seat to replace it for bigger adventures. Meanwhile my friends all just bought Gnarwhals because they want to be able to carry more cargo on trips that do not require hiking, and also because they want the extra buoyancy in bigger water. They are trying to convince me of the same (and I am a bit concerned that I may end up being the one always swimming as we get after bigger water if I am the only wolverine of the bunch). My guess is you will tell me to get the wolverine as you have so often above, but still curious if you have any words of advice, especially being that I am shorter than most of the people on this discussion thread?

    Like

    1. Hi Maggie- you are right about what I am going to say… in my opinion, the Gnarwhal is the right boat for big boaters (> 200 lbs) and big water. Cargo capacity should not be a factor; you can fit a lot of gear in any zipper boat.

      Smaller paddlers can feel lost in the Gnar…. you wouldn’t get huge oversized powder skis just because they have more float and your guy ski partners have them… you’d get a ski that fits you.

      As for exped vs. wolv… tough call. They will both work, and you will probably want both versions of outfitting regardless of which hull you end up with.

      Like

      1. Thanks Luc, yes I’m def not getting the Gnar, thanks for confriming that for me. I will go with the Wolverine–just so I feel like more of a bad ass ;). I’m gonna call the shop to see about getting an expedition seat in add on. And also talk to them about the possible sleeve entrapment issue y’all were discussing earlier in the thread and see what they think about using the exped seat in the wolv.

        Like

        1. Maggie, I decided to go the exact route you mentioned. I haven’t received it yet, but ordered the Wolverine and also ordered an expedition seat so I have the option to swap seats for trips where want to reduce weight. I will give the boat a closer inspection before using the expedition seat to be sure I feel comfortable with that from a safety perspective. I did pose the question to Alpacka about possible entrapment hazard using an expedition seat in the Wolverine boat with the seat sleeve, and the response was…”I suppose it would be possible to get a foot or arm stuck in the seat sleeve but it seems very unlikely, and probably the least likely hazard present”.

          Will let you know if I learn anything more….Adam

          Liked by 1 person

  17. Hi Luc,
    Great site and insight. I appreciate all your comments above. I just ordered the gnar due to sizing as I came out to XL in length but now I am wondering if a custom wolverine in XL is better suited to my specs? I am 6’2” 185 lbs. I have a solid background in multi-day packraft expeditions and feel comfortable up to class IV. My paddling style requires speed and maneuverability. What do you think? Also, can you explain the sleeve/seat possible entrapment a bit more? Should I be looking at an additional classic seat like the expedition model has? Thanks in advance.

    Like

    1. The large wolverine is a little cramped for me (6’1″) on long days, so you are probably right to get the XL Gnar. A large expedition might be an option for you too.

      My concern with the w series seat sleeve is that when the ww seat isn’t installed, the sleeve provides a few snag points that could lead to entrapment. I haven’t heard of this happening so it is really just an observation, not based on personal experience. It is safest to use the sleeve wit the seat it was intended for, when we choose to modify the boat/outfitting, we have to re-evaluate safety concerns.

      I hope that helps–

      Like

      1. Thanks Luc. I appreciate the information on the seat. So based on my specs and the type of paddling I like to do, is the wolverine a better choice for me? Thanks!

        Like

        1. I’m inclined in general to say “the boat you have is the better choice for you.” Or, in this case, the boat you ordered. You are kind of between sizes. Ideally, you should spend a day in an L wolverine before committing to it.

          The Gnar is a great boat. A little heavier, a little bulkier, more storage, more stable. Definitely better on big water and for bigger paddlers. If you put on 15 lbs there would be no question. Maybe you can just bulk up over the holidays ;).

          Like

          1. I definitely could gain some weight but short of that Alpacka confirmed my thinking today. I called and they said the gnarwahl was probably a bit big for my weight and slower than my paddling style needs. So I changed my order to a XL Wolverine.

            Like

  18. Luc

    Interested in opinions. I use to paddle a lot (class V) and still have my hard shell playboat (got rid of my creeker although I usually used my playboat even for harder stuff). So I’m not looking for a WW boat. My buddy picked up a Exped with thigh straps etc to do bike packrafting and perhaps other trips (not sure of all of his interests – he’s not a paddler other than canoes but might be opening to doing some tamer stuff – I don’t know). So carrying a bike and backcountry gear for long trips is important, weight plays a role of course, but given no idea of every future trip I cannot say the level of WW difficulty I could encounter. However my real issue would be WW handling with a bike and gear and far less of a concern would be WW with no gear – I’d just use my hard shell. What is the best boat to use for bike pack rafting in the backcountry where you could find rapids on various rivers (obviously if the rapids are class IV or higher I’d likely be portaging them rather than risk bike and gear). The Gnar is heavy in WW setup but likely the best to carry all the gear and still be good in some level of rapids. The Exped – would the weight of bike and gear be too much to make it rapid worthy? Everything is a compromise of course. On top of that does the level of one’s WW ability play a role is the boat for such trips (meaning you can use a lesser boat given greater comfort and skill) and therefore focus should be on other aspects?

    Thoughts? Thanx!

    Like

    1. Hi Dennis- My main reaction to your questions is this: Paddling rapids with a bike on the bow of any boat will be challenging and unsafe. I know people do it and I know that I would not be willing to. A wet re-entry is our equivalent of a kayak roll (packraft rolls are possible… but… the point is…) and you can’t count on turning a loaded packraft back upright. So, for me personally, Class II with a bike. And then it wouldn’t matter if you have a ww boat or not. If the goal is bikepacking, one of the simple utility boats might be the best choice.

      BUT, since you have an affinity for playing on the water, you should get a Wolverine or Exped. You might find yourself willing to take the packraft out for ww instead of your kayak, especially because the packraft will open up a bunch of trail-access water.

      Like

        1. Right… Deane is an expert at running with a loaded boat. Most people aren’t. The river is just as difficult for all of us and adding a boat makes all of us more vulnerable. But adding a bike makes me more vulnerable than Deane because he has been training for that activity for years and I haven’t. So… all of those factors come to play in our risk assessment. Your ww experience makes you a good candidate to paddle rowdy water with whatever you want, but it would certainly be less hazardous without gear on the bow. It is easy to imaging getting an arm or leg stuck in the frame or chain during a swim… that could be real bad.

          I’m deep in the risk assessment part of my Packraft Handbook writing… so that is what you are hearing 😉

          Like

Leave a Reply to Korpi-Jaakko Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s