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


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.


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.


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.


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.”


  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”. 🙂

  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.

    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.

      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.

  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… 😀

    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.

  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.

  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).

    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.

      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.

        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.

  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.

    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.

  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?

    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.


  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

    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.

  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?

    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.

      1. Could you elaborate on how you put a strap under the seat to lift it off the floor?

        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.

  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?


    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.

    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…

  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?


    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).

      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?

        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.

          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.

          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!

          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.

          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:

            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).

          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.

          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

  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. 

    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.

  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?

    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.

      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

  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.

    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.

  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.

    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!

  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?

    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.

      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.

        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

  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.

    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–

      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!

        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 ;).

          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.

  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!

    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.

        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 😉

  19. Hi Luc,
    I’m getting my first packraft and can’t decide between gnarwhal(WWdeck), expedition(WR) and now Wolverine(WW). I’ve done a little bit of whitewater kayaking up to class III. I’m 5’4 165lbs and want to use it in combination with backpacking trips. Rivers class II and III potentially III+ in the future.
    Weight is not an issue, I was going for the gnarwhal because of its stability and WW deck but I would like to bring my dog on floats and lakes if I had a WR deck on the expedition for example. But I would add the tight straps and foot brace to the expedition(for whitewater use)so then it would almost be a Wolverine?? I can only get the Removable deck on the expedition up here in Canada. But again I’m more concerned about getting the right boat for the trips I will be doing than one compatible for the dog. Other thing is that the WR deck lets water in if you paddle class III and the Yukon rivers are glacier fed so in that sense it would make more sense getting a non removable WW deck. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!! Thank you luc
    (dog is just added bonus not a priority)

    1. I think you should take the Gnarwhal off the list. It is an awesome boat, but better justified for big paddlers and big water.

      I don’t have any personal experience with the WR deck. My concern would be damaging the zipper by getting rowdy. But it sounds like you don’t plan to get too rowdy and should be able to take care of the zipper. I love the idea of being able to remove the deck to make room for a dog or just have an easy day on the lake. I guess the WR Expedition is what I would recommend. My only hesitation is that I don’t have experience with that zipper.

      You will need a drysuit for Yukon rivers, so the very slight difference in how much water comes in the WR deck shouldn’t be a deciding point.

      1. Thank you so much for your opinion Luc! Glad to hear I should take the gnarwhal off my list as this has been my biggest predicament for a long time. And yes I will be using a drysuit regardless of which boat I get so I think I’m sold on the expedition. Your website is so informative, great content!
        Thank you Luc

        1. Luc knows more than I, but I just went through the same process with Alpacka, trying to decide between the Gnarwhal and Wolverine. I called Alpacka, gave them my specs (6’3″ 185lbs), and they said sure you would be fine with the Gnarwhal especially given it comes in an XL length, which I measured out to. I finished the conversation, hung up then started placing my order for the Gnarwhal on the website and about 5 minutes later Alpacka called me back and said they discussed my choice among the staff and thought the Gnarwhal might be too much boat for me given my weight. They recommended I order a custom Wolverine in XL. So if that tells you anything, I think you need to be 200lbs + for the Gnarwhal if you want to maneuver it in fast Class III +.

          1. Thank you Peter is definitely reassuring to know the gnarwhal is too much boat for my height/weight.
            I think if the dealer here in Canada had the Wolverine with WR I would get that one but they only have the expedition with the WR so I’m getting that one instead plus tight straps and foot brace. 🙂

          2. Peter, I’ve been going back and forth on this exact some choice, and I too am 6’3” 185. I have a Llahma now with a removable WW deck, which I want/need for my new boat. My main issue is length and room for gear, so I’m hoping for 97 or 100”. What are you seeing for the custom XL Wolverine ?

          3. Phepfer I don’t remember if Alpacka gave me a total boat length for the Xl Wolverine. My sit length, if I recall correctly, was 47.5″ with shoes on and Alpacka told me an XL Wolverine would give me enough knee bend for excellent control with braces and some room to stretch out on calmer water. The “XL” size does not mean the carrying capacity of the Wolverine increased, I think it still tops out at 350lbs.

          4. I too am 6’3″, 175lbs, 35″ legs and got an XL Wolverine last year.

            I find my legs fill out the inside of the boat pretty well of I have the foot cushion inflated. Certainly wouldn’t want any gear in there with me. I haven’t been able to do any proper trips due to lock downs, but with some sample kit in the cargo fly it seems well balanced.

            One issue I had was that they didn’t seem to move the thigh straps for the extra length, so they aren’t really in the right place, even at their farthest extend, so something you might want to mention on your order if you get one

  20. Hoping to get some opinions on standard nylon ns vectran for a wolverine. I paddle G4, and definitely notice the lack of stiffness in my current nylon boat. I’m pretty keen on the increased stiffness of the vectran.
    I also paddle a hardshell
    Wondering how much more bulky the vectran boat is, and if the increased pinhole susceptibility is a big issue in practice (i do paddle some low volume rocky rivers as well as bigger water

    1. I haven’t owned a vectran boat, so I’m not much help here. Yes, higher pressure, stiffer, and lower tear strength. All I can offer is that the standard Wolverine is an amazing boat and I’ve never felt the need to go to vectran fabric.

      1. Many thanks
        One more question
        I’ve ordered a large wolverine. I’m right at the upper end of medium/ lower end of large (sit length 108cm, 5’8”/174 cm but with short torso
        Went large as I figured a longer boat would have a bit more speed, as I’ll sometimes be paddling big water g4.i’m imagining with the backrest maximally forward it should work well, and I’ve enjoyed the extra length in modern hardshells.
        It might be too late to change (order went in a few weeks ago), but would love opinions on sizing, & if I have made the right call

        1. The foot brace will snug your feet up in big water. I think you made the right call.

          at 6’1″ I’m uncomfortably tight in the Wolv (which is what I want in WW), and can’t use the foot brace.

  21. Luc,

    Based on my own research and testimonies, yours included I’ve been debating on several different packrafts. I’ve still been fighting through on of the 1st gens and its time for a considerable upgrade. I’m looking for a good boat to play in Class III+ but beefy enough for multi sport multi day trips. (May be asking for a lot but I want to bikeraft as well) I’m 6’3″ and 220lbs so I’ve been looking at the gnar. Still a good boat for those multi day multi sport trips? I’ll be doing shorter trips more often so I think the gnar is the best choice, but figured I’d see your thoughts.

    1. Hi Quinn, I think your size puts you solidly in the Gnar. You could pursue a custom long Wolverine … but it would be even less stable. The Gnar is a great boat, just too big for most people (in my opinion). I carried mine through the Brooks Range … still fits in a backpack 😉

      1. Apparently my comment went to the main thread. 🤦🏼‍♂️

        That’s my thought and that’s the plan. I’m in the Brooks a fair bit, so going to try and do a longer trip with it. Unfortunately things’ll have to wait until next season – scored a deal on a 15’ Sotar for the family so going to rock the big boat for a bit.

  22. Hi Luc,

    I followed your advice on your blog post on the alpacka site, which amusingly is the inverse of what you recommended here, and got an expedition with the longer wolverine seat.

    My question is, what modifications does that seat need to be used the expedition, it lacks the D ring clip that the newer expeditions have on them.

    1. What part of the advice was opposing?

      You would need to buy the seat-toggle attachment plate top, and bottom, if there isn’t one on the floor, that is new to me. Glue them in a mid-seat position that will let you clip it in.

      This has been on my to-do list since I bought my boat … and I still haven’t done it! The snug fit has worked, and the few times the seat has popped out, my friends grabbed it. Gambling man 😉

      1. I don’t know if I’m that bold. I’m new to pack rafting and kayaking in general, so I’m real bad and do a lot of swimming. I want everything firmly attached. 😀

        I’ll have to see what I can find for an attachment point and try to hook something up. thanks for the advice!

  23. Hi Luc,

    I’m debating between a Classic w/cargo fly + DIY thigh straps vs. an Expedition and wondering if you have any advice. Ruled out the Wolverine so far because in Large it’s 1lb heavier than the comparable Expedition.

    I’m ~6’2″ and ~155 lbs. Versatility and light weight are my priorities. I’m an experienced backcountry walker getting a packraft for the new realms of adventure it opens (especially in Alaska), with an eye to incorporating paddling on multiday hiking trips for both the ability to increase mileage/geographic access and the aesthetic value of water travel. My main goals, with practice, are along the lines of the Alaska Mountain Wilderness Classic routes, but I could also see myself lured by Class III-IV water for its own sake down the road.

    Cost matters but I expect to have this thing for a long time (I’m 23) so am willing to spend a bit more for an appreciably better boat. Also waffling between WW and removable deck but I gather you don’t have much personal experience with the latter.

    I’d love to hear any perspective you have. Thanks for making so much of what you do accessible to people like me on your site. You’re an inspiration.


    1. I’d buy the expedition just so that you don’t have to DIY anything … ready to paddle and a great boat to grow into. I’ll keep choosing the ww deck until someone convinces me I shouldn’t.

  24. Hi Luc, looking to get into packrafting and I’m sold on the Alpacka’s after seeing my buddy use his. He is likely upgrading to a Gnarwhal to open up more whitewater but he’s a fair bit bigger than me. I’m 5’8 and on average around 175-180lb. I’m looking for a good all rounder for the most part capable of longer trips but good in WW for fun days or more extreme adventures. There’s a hankering to build up to stuff on the scale of the Grand Canyon and that’s what is playing into my choice of boat.
    I’m leaning towards the Expedition kitted out with WR, thigh straps etc but I suspect that the Expedition isn’t suitable for those dreams of bigger WW and maybe I should go with the Gnarwhal? Haven’t considered the Wolverine but it sounds very similar to the Expedition.
    Thoughts – particularly on the capabilities of the Exped in big stuff, do you know anyone who has taken them on Class IV/V?

    1. Hi Rick- the Expedition is very WW capable. I think you should get either the Wolverine or Expedition. The real difference is that the Expedition is two inches longer. It would be ideal to sit in some boats and figure out what size feels best. At 5.8″ … you might be choosing between a medium Wolv or Small Exped. I’d check the sizing guidelines on the Alpacka site.

  25. Hi Luc,

    I’m getting my first boat and looking for some advice. I’m 5’4 and 120lbs, with WW kayak experience. I’m between the gnar and the Wolverine. I’m looking for a one boat quiver to add to my van. I’ll be using it primarily for 3-7 day trips in the PNW and southwest. I live right by a mellow headwaters with a nice 10 mile float on my daily commute. I aspire to paddle the GC, but most of my time will be spent on the Gallatin/Bob. I know the Gnar is higher volume but the Wolverine is better suited for smaller people. Will I be dwarfed by a small gnar and find myself along for the ride? Or will the Wolverine send me swimming in high volume (I do not enjoy swimming).

    Thanks for everything you do to make packrafting accessible!


    1. My advice is that the Gnar is the right boat for people over 200 lbs. You might swim a few more times in the Wolverine, but that will probably make you a better boater 😉

    2. I ordered a custom Wolverine in XL that fit my sit length well, approximately 47″. This was a happy medium between the Expedition and the Gnar. If I remember correctly, the price for an off-the-shelf Wolverine in Large wasn’t too much more.

  26. Hi Luc,
    I have really enjoyed your book. I’m in Sydney, Australia.
    After reading everything above I think you will say the Wolverine (I kinda hope you will).
    I have been packrafting for the last year in a MRS Tulo (small alpacka classic copy) on mostly flat water, and a bit of open water. I’m 5’4” and about 150lbs.
    I recently did an into to whitewater course and really enjoyed it and am now wanting a self bailing raft.
    I feel comfortable in my Tulo, so like the idea of another smallish boat (Wolverine), but my inexperience is suggesting the gnarwhal.
    I appreciate any advice.
    Thanks 🙂🛶

    1. Hi Clare- I’m glad to hear you are enjoying the book!

      You already know my answer … I think you are about 50 lbs too light for a Gnarwhal. The Wolverine will be a better fit—you will have better control of the boat.


  27. Thanks so much. I really just needed the confirmation -it’s a lot of money!
    I bit the bullet and bought it!
    So exciting! 😀🛶

  28. Hi Luc! Fellow Anchorage resident here wanting to buy my first Alpaca packraft! I am 5’4″ and currently weigh 210 lbs but my weight usually fluctuates between 160-200 lbs. Goal with packrafting right now is for Class I and Class II and paddling glacial lakes in both Alaska and UT/AZ/NV (Southwest area) where I spend a lot of time during the year as well. I am primarily a hiker/backpacker but would love to incorporate packrafting into my trips, especially in AZ/UT/NV area. I definitely will be using the boat for overnight backpacking trips.

    Any suggestions for the right packraft and setup/accessories? If I get into whitewater in the future then I can buy another boat if needed. Cost not a factor.

    Thanks so much!

    1. Hi Andrea-

      It would be ideal if you could try out a few boats before committing to a purchase. Though, that said, it should be pretty easy to resell any boat that isn’t a perfect fit for you.

      It might make sense to start in an Alpacka Classic. The Classic is a very capable boat, even in whitewater. I wish the Classics came with thigh straps—I sure prefer having thigh straps for boat control, even in Class I/II water.

      Because you want to do overnight trips (and cost is not a factor), definitely get a cargo zipper.

      You might also appreciate how much easier it is to get in and out of a self-bailer (as opposed to a decked boat). My only concern with the self-bailers is that they run a bit colder (your feet are in water). You can dress to account for that. But if you generally run cold … a self-bailer might not be ideal.

      I also wouldn’t hesitate to reach out to Alpacka—they know their boat better than anyone else and have great customer support.

      Good luck!

  29. Hey Luc – similar to many above, I’m trying to determine which alpacka is best for me. I’ve done a couple days on flatwater (with a mutual friend) and a couple days on a class I/II. (I’m 6’2″ x 180 x 46″ sit length) Looking to do much more in the next couple of years but probably nothing more than class III and hopefully mostly trips with both hiking and paddling. I’m leaning towards a large Expedition but wondering if a Wolverine makes more sense in order to get the WW seat? In reading above, not sure if you have a Wolverine and swap to the smaller seat or an Expedition and swap in the longer seat for WW days? Alpacka says that i would need to glue in a sleeve on the Expedition in order to use the WW seat. Thanks in advance for any advice. Looking forward to reading your book – its coming as a xmas present.

    1. Hi Gene-

      I suspect that you are too tall for a large Wolverine. I’m 6’1″, long legs, and it is a bit uncomfortable for me on long days. The extra length of the expedition would be nice for me, but I have the Wolverine for the performance whitewater fit.

      You can get the second seat and either pressure fit it into the boat (you do risk losing it on a swim) or come up with your own (entrapment-aware) attachment system.

      Given your height, I’d probably start with the Large Expedition. You can order the long seat later, if you want. It probably doesn’t add much until you are making Class IV maneuvers.


  30. Hi Luc,
    Trying to decide what I want for my first packraft. I’m 6’1, 160 lbs, seat length ~42 inches, and I want a boat that could handle a wide variety of conditions, work well on backpacking trips, and would be capable enough to learn whitewater techniques in. I was leaning towards a large 420d SB Wolv or Gnar, just on the fence about which one because going by height Alpacka says get the gnar but by weight the Wolv. I’ve got experience in kayaking, mostly big lakes and ocean stuff, with a few class I and II- rivers. I’ve already got the cold water gear/drysuit (and I am used to being cold and wet for many hours on end) from extensive dinghy sailing so I think I’d be fine without the spray skirt. Please let me know what you think,

    1. My bias is that you are too light for the Gnar. What about the expedition? It is the same as the Wolv, just a little longer. Might be nice for your height.

  31. HI Luc,
    I’m looking to do something a little different than the rest of you. I’m want to island hop in southern Alaska where I live. This will involve hiking across the islands and paddling to the next one. Most ocean stretches will be 10miles or less.
    While I know river white water does not = open ocean waves, I imagine that something good at the former will be useful in the latter. Initially I thought Gnarwhal for the stability on open ocean, but after reading your review, I’m thinking Wolverine, as tracking and speed would be invaluable on open ocean water. Any thoughts? I’m 6’1 and 190lbs and would probably carry a solid 30-40lbs of gear (+ beach combing treasures).

    1. Hi Ryan- I’m pretty uncomfortable with the prospect of a 10 mile crossing in a packraft. I would prioritize a model with multiple chambers and that tracks better … if such a thing exists. I’ve seen some marketing from some European brands that have those features. But honestly, in my opinion, a packraft doesn’t sound like the right tool for the job.

  32. Thanks, I could probably get away with 5 mile crossings and most paddling is near shore (<1mile). I'm planning on using the cargo fly option filled with empty drybags (where there isn't gear) as separate air pockets.
    This is something that's done regularly around here. check out for example. But as far as a packable boat along with camping/hiking gear goes, there really is no other option. Thanks again and let me know if you've any suggestions.

    1. Hi Ryan, I have a suggestion for you. Check out the MRS (Microraft Systems) Nomad s1. It’s a packraft, but has a removable skeg on it, weighs just under 10 lb. and can have a cargo fly. Not sure if it has 2 chambers or not, but your method of putting inflatable drybags in there would work.

    2. Staying close to shore would make a big difference.

      To be fully transparent, my first reaction to your question was, “I can’t go on record giving advice to this guy” because of how dangerous open water crossings are in packrafts. I did some math … 10 miles … 3 mile/hour paddle pace plus some breaks = four hours far from shore. That’s plenty of time for conditions to get bad. The real issue for me is that the boats are so hard to control in the wind—and then if you do flip … yikes.

      I’m not up-to-date on foldable canoe/kayak options. Is there a modern version of the Klepper? Folboat? What about the crazy foldable kayak that looks like it is made out of political signs?

      Good luck! Stay safe!

  33. Hey Luc – appreciate everything you do for wilderness travel.

    I have a question about picking up my first packraft. Pretty set on the Expedition/Wolverine/Gnarwhal but just trying to parse some final info before purchasing.

    I’m 6’2″, 195-200 lbs, with a 49″!!! seat length. Confident in the seat length – I measured 3 times.

    The idea of the Wolverine/Expedition hull and it’s playfulness is appealing. I like my skis playful so I figure I will like my packraft playful. At my sit length it’s gotta be a custom order XL for either of those boats. At the same time I know I’m right at that weight where the Gnarwhal becomes an option.

    In my mind the hull design of an XL Expedition gives me the playfulness I want, and does it at roughly ~1lb less than an XL Gnarwhal. I’m also thinking that even if I fit the seat length of an XL Wolverine I’m at a weight where the XL Expedition might make more sense – it should be more buoyant right? So that’s kinda my thinking for an XL Expedition. Lemme know if I’m on the right track or if you think a XL Gnarwhal/Wolverine makes more sense for a reason I’m not thinking of.

    I emailed Alpacka this same question more or less and waiting on a response back. I’ll follow up this post with their response so that others with longer seat lengths and higher weight can learn as well!

    1. Shoot, yours sounds like a tough decision … right on the boundary. My concern with the XL wolv/expedition is that the long and skinny boat might be REALLY playful 😉 tippy. The Gnar would be a heavier boat, but the extra width would probably feel pretty good in turbulent water. If you feel like you can be a powerful paddler, you might have no problem controlling the bigger boat. If you feel like you don’t have much core/upper body strength, the Gnar might still feel like a lot of boat.

      Honestly, I would try to crowdsource feedback from folks that have the XL boats. The Alaska packraft facebook group would be a good place to ask.

      Good luck!

      1. Thanks for the response Luc.

        I went with a Gnarwhal, XL, 420D.

        For others looking along the same lines as me: the response I got from Alpacka stated that the interior lengths of an XL Gnarwhal, Wolverine and Expedition were 49″, 50″, and 52″. They also reiterated the 200 lb mark being the point where the Gnarwhal makes sense.

        I got it today and played around with it. The 49″ floor length is nice with my 49″ seat length. Without the foot brace and with shoes on (Akyras – 25mm/0.94″ stack height at the heel) I almost have enough room to stretch out for long days/flatwater/casual. With shoes on and the foot brace in I have a tight fit with a deep but comfortable bend in the knees that I believe will provide the control I need for whitewater. Time will tell. First impressions (which mean close to nothing) leave me exceedingly happy with the XL Gnarwhal.

  34. Hello and thanks for being a reservoir of knowledge for people. Much appreciated!
    I’m curious what input you might have on 210d vs 420d? Ive had a friend tell me he wished he had a thicker material as he’s gotten a few punctures with the lighter stuff. How’s your experience been with either of those materials? Getting ready to order up and that’s one of last things to decide on.

    1. To be honest, I don’t have any experience with the 420d.

      It probably depends a bit on the kind of boating you plan to do. Creeking with a lot of rock hits? Big water with few rocks? “A few punctures” sounds pretty easy to manage. But if you are going on a remote trip with a ton of sharp rock… 7 days from help … might be worth having that thicker fabric.

      For what it is worth, I’ve only used the 210d and never considered the heavier fabric or lighter Vectran.

  35. Hello!
    I was wondering if anyone experience ordering a packraft and delivered in urban Canada, I am wondering about the customs!
    Also, does the hull design between the Classic and Expedition make any tracking difference on flat water?

    1. Hi Pierre- Sorry, but I don’t have any insight on those questions. I would reach out to Alpacka directly. Good luck!

  36. Hi Luc,

    Thanks for hosting such a helpful and informative site. It’s been a great resource so far as a begin my research. I’m sold on Alpacka and like many here, I’m trying to figure out my best option. I’m 5’8, 150 lbs and an intermediate paddler overall. Living in Colorado, I’ve done a lot of kayak touring and spent my fair share of time on larger commercial rafts. Right now I’m torn between the expedition and the classic. Generally, I’d like to start doing more ww, but I’m not looking to do too much past class III. I am also fairly weight-conscious of my setup (I’d like to do a fair bit of remote backcountry trips). By the time I upgrade the classic to what I want – removable WW deck, cargo fly, and thigh straps- it’s pretty much the same weight and cost as an expedition with the main differences being tube diameter and hull design. Would the more stable/slightly roomier classic be a better fit for starting out or would you just get the expedition right out of the gate? Am I just splitting hairs at this point?

    I’m also curious if you have any experience paddling their new lineup of ultralight boats, specifically the Refuge? If so, any thoughts?

    Thanks again for what you do.


    1. Because you are already a water lover, you should get the Expedition. It is a higher performance boat and you will quickly ‘grow’ into it. The deck, zip, and thigh straps are so important to me … and like you say … once you add those to the Classic, might as well get the Exped. The Exped feels to me like the natural evolution of the standard model.

      I’ve been eagerly awaiting the Refuge. Unfortunately, I’m too tall for it. But it looks like a great boat. I’d still want to put in thigh straps, and I would miss the more supportive seat and backrest for any paddling closer to home (rapids). But for a remote and scenic trip, it would be really nice.

      The Exped remains the ‘one boat that does it all’ in my opinion.

      1. Thanks for the helpful reply, Luc. That all makes sense. I was also considering a custom refuge with a heavier duty (840d) floor and adding DIY thigh straps for an ultralight yet durable boat, but I think I’ll probably keep it simple and just go for the Exped. Just out of curiosity, is there a big difference performance-wise between DIY straps and those bought directly through Alpacka?



        1. There really is. The 4-pc strap creates a much better connection between knee and hull, AND is safer, because having shorter spans between attachment points makes it less likely to snag a foot.

          For remote trips I carry webbing thigh straps, but for everything else, I really like Alpacka’s 4-pc straps.

  37. Hi – I just ordered a Wolverine in large a couple of days ago. I used to be an avid whitewater kayaker and paddle raft guide MANY years ago and look forward to getting back into the sport. My sit length is 42″ without shoes / booties, so I fit into the medium or large. Any thoughts on the large? Hoping I ordered the right size. (123 lb 5’6″)

    1. I’d defer to Alpacka’s size guidelines. A larger fit will be more comfortable for long days on the water … a smaller fit will be sportier.

      I’m 6’1″ and in the large, so I probably wouldn’t have recommended the large for your height.

      1. Thanks Luc – I should have specified – my thought was I wanted something comfortable for multi day trips. (float and bloat Class II maybe one III) We also have a class II with one III river here through our home town. Anyhow…..thanks for your blog. Very helpful in choosing my Wolverine. So happy I found you. Much appreciation!

  38. Thanks for all the great resources on this site, and I love your book! I read somewhere that you don’t use the foot pillow in your Wolverine. I just got a Gnarwhal in a L and have been trying to dial in the fit. I’m on the upper end of the sit length for the size, and have been trying it without the pillow so I can get a bit more forward.m. It seems that in shallow water, I get more heel strikes on rocks without it. I worry this could be a wear point on the floor. Have you had any issues or have any tips for going without it? Thanks!

    1. yeah, that’s a legitimate concern. when i’m paddling shallow water i adopt the ‘starfish’ orientation … feet flat on the floor (no heel digging) and often leaning back and out with my knees to help limit how much the boat drags.

      that said, the floor material is shockingly durable and I haven’t worn holes in the heel positions despite A TON of scraping over rocks. And if/when I do, they are easy patches with aquaseal or tape.

      1. Thanks for the reply. Coming from a self-bailer classic with padding underfoot, I was surprised by a few jarring foot strikes when paddling some shallow whitewater. They seemed worse without the foot pillow, but your heels are probably going to feel it either way I suppose.

  39. Thank you Luc for all of the valuable information that you provide. I’m hoping you can advise which pump to purchase for topping off my Wolverine. The K Pump Mini or the Pack a Pump OR ?????. All the best and thanks again.

    1. Hi Donna- I don’t have any experience with pumps besides the standard inflation bag. Good luck with your decision–

  40. Hi Luc,
    Thanks for your really helpful information and book too!

    Similar to a lot of people I’m trying to weigh up the boat decision and would appreciate any advice in the gnarwhal and wolverine decision space. I’m 86kg and 179cm (I think about 185-189lb and 5ft10). Planning to use the boat in a bit of everything but mostly whitewater playing on the weekends with some slightly longer trips with a pack (40lb ish) and maybe the odd bike trip.

    I’m relatively new to the world of whitewater (just paddling class II at the moment) but am getting into it more and hoping to improve and would ideally like to get a boat that will last a few years. Would appreciate any thoughts or suggestions you might have.


    1. My blanket recommendation is for the Wolverine/Expedition unless folks weigh over 200 lbs or are too tall for the large. Sounds like you are a good candidate for the Wolv/Exped.

      1. Thanks for your reply Luc! I was a bit concerned about the carrying capacity and stability of the wolverine if it had some gear loaded on it for a week, but from reading the full set of comments, it sounds like it should be fine

  41. So would you recommend the wolverine for 200# guy getting into whitewater, also medium or large for someone 43.5 sit length. Is there any reason to go the 420 denier. Thanks for any info

    1. At 200 lbs I think you are right on the line between Wolverine vs. Gnarwhal. Wolverine might feel small, zippy. Gnarwhal might feel big, flat, hard to get on edge.

      I’d just follow Alpacka’s sit length guidelines … I don’t have any better way to recommend sizing.

      I’ve never had a 420-d boat … the standard 210 has been working great for me. I guess if you know you will be paddling over a lot of rocks … but if that is the case, I’d be nervous about relying on any inflatable boat.

  42. Hi Luc,
    I am thinking to buy a wolverine and dont know if i take 210d or 420d fabric.

    You wrote:
    “For what it is worth, I’ve only used the 420d and never considered the lighter fabric or Vectran. Given that a lot of my boating is quite remote, I’ve justified carrying a heavier boat for increased durability.”

    “I’ve never had a 420-d boat … the standard 210 has been working great for me. I guess if you know you will be paddling over a lot of rocks … but if that is the case, I’d be nervous about relying on any inflatable boat.”

    Is the 210d strong enough for “normal” whitewater with some stone contact?



    1. Looks like I got my wires crossed … thanks for pointing that out and I’ll correct the earlier post.

      I’ve only used 210d. And your wording is exactly what I’ll use from now one … something like, “As indicated by the past 15 years of use … the standard 210d is strong enough for normal whitewater and stone contact.”

    2. Joerg, I’ve used 210d boats for years. When I got more into whitewater this summer, I bought a 420d Gnarwhal. I switched to a 210d Wolverine this fall, and while I like the boat better, I’m going to upgrade to a 420d Wolv. The 410d is more durable, but perhaps more importantly for whitewater, it makes the boat quite a bit stiffer. Even a well-tempered 210d boat seems a bit soft compared to 420d. The downside is that it adds weight and is quite a bit bulkier and harder to fold. If your primary focus is harder (class 4) whitewater, the 420d is probably worth it. For more general purpose whitewater or if weight/bulk are significant factors, than I’d go with the 210d. The 210d fabric is plenty durable. -Chris

  43. Thanks for your answers!
    Ive ordered a 210d wolverine with Tzip and ww deck.
    Maybe I take a 420d selfbailer as a “ww only boat” later.

  44. Luc, thank you so much for all your amazing resources on this site. I’d also really like to compliment your many videos over the years: they are fantastic and some of the best adventure videos online. I have watched almost all of them. I want to ask your opinion of the Refuge and Whitewater Refuge now that they are available in size large. I am 6’1″, 160lb. I have not purchased a “proper” boat yet and have used a modified Klymit LWD in Utah and tried a friend’s 2017 Classic and 2021 Scout on a class I/II trip in Kentucky. I mainly dream of doing big traverse (weight conscious) trips more so than dedicated whitewater, but with my background in action sports I know I will eventually be drawn to more aggressive terrain. I am trying to figure out if I should go with a WW deck Classic with thigh straps or even an Expedition, or go for the weight savings of the Refuge. A WW refuge may also fit here as a middle compromise.

    I found the 840D floor material on the boats I have used to be amazingly durable, and this makes me wonder if the lighter floor of the normal Refuge is good enough for most applications, even with an occasional repair. I am also wondering your experience with tube diameter for running shallow rivers. I definitely have experienced that in a Classic when “star fishing,” one can make it over shallow water easier, compared to my friend in a Scout. That being said, we both had to get out and drag enough that I am not sure the difference is all that significant.

    In my mind a size L refuge with thigh straps would be amazing, perhaps with some DIY modifications for a back band or a foot rest if I really want to dress it up, but at that point I may be disappointed in my boat and wish to have just purchased something more capable and just dealt with a bit more weight for greater versatility. I partly feel that this should certainly be possible, because in the early days of the boat designs you and Roman managed to do plenty of impressive whitewater work with just additional thigh straps in boats with far less whitewater-oriented shape.

    Thanks again for everything,

    1. Well … you’ve already summarized most of my opinion about these options. The Classic model is great for WW, with a WW deck. My priorities are cargo zip, thigh straps, backband. I’m not as sensitive to the hull design.

      I’m in line for a new WW Refuge. Like you, I’m concerned about the thinner material … I’m pretty sure carrying the extra weight of thicker fabric has been good for me.

      I’ve been carrying the expedition on long trips, and carried the gnarwhal before that … so … none of these boats are heavy compared to a kayak!

      I really enjoy the playfulness of the Expedition/Wolverine. I anticipate the Refuge to feel more like a utility boat, and that I will be avoiding the splashy lines in it.

      So … you are asking all the right questions and I don’t have all the answers. The good news is, you will be thrilled with whatever you end up purchasing.

      1. Luc, than you for the reply. I appreciate that there is no clear answer to this question and it depends on how I weight my priorities. When you do get your Refuge, it would be amazing if you could do a quick write up/review on this site. There is so little information about this boat or experiences from people who have used them, and I think a lot of people would appreciate it. Thank you,

          1. Hey Luc,
            Have you had a chance to try out the WW refuge? Wondering if you can comment on how it handles in WW, shallow water, and compare it to the boats with a “rally hull.”

  45. Hi Luc,

    I’m 6ft 130lbs. I’m deciding between a WW refuge and Exped since I want thigh straps. It sounds like you haven’t tested the WW refuge yet. But, would my lighter weight make you consider one or the other?

    Love the site & trips, many thanks.

    1. I do have a WW refuge for this summer … so I’ll know more about it soon. But I think your decision should be based on the ‘whitewater’ part … not your weight. If you expect to paddle much ww, you should get the Expedition.

      Alpacka says: “Skilled paddlers will find the Whitewater Refuge a joy to paddle in wilderness class III …” and I expect this to mean it will be a hard boat to manage through Class III water unless you are a really good paddler. It is more of a beefed up Scout (same tube diameter) than a stripped down Expedition (larger tube diameter).

  46. I bought a classic medium with a removable wwd and am questioning my choice because I’m really excited for WW now. I don’t have thigh straps or a backhand and am considering a DIY option. I asked alpaca about this and they recommended I sell my boat instead of adding the DIY backband annd thigh strap and buy a Wolverine or gnarwall. I’m not in a good position to buy another Packraft now. Just bought a forager to use with my kids. I would prefer a DIY option and practice for a year or two before I commit to another boat. I would love to know your thoughts on next steps as I learn boat control and practice on what I have.

    1. Afraid to say … my advice is the same as you heard from Alpacka.

      But, it is pretty easy to install a backband and thigh straps. I haven’t looked for this, but you might check the DIY Packraft page for resources and instructions. Otherwise, my ‘Pimp my packraft’ page, and similar description in the book, might be all you need. The Classic is completely undervalued as a whitewater boat … that model worked great for me on all of the hard runs in my earlier years. True, the Wolverine is sportier, and that’s what I’d want, ultimately.

  47. Thanks very helpful. I read the section in your book about upgrades and found some stabond at a local WW rafting store. Love the pimp-my-Packraft page and video too.

  48. Btw the new custom options at alpaca for a wwd + self bailing seem pretty amazing. Any thoughts on combining the two options?

    1. I didn’t know they were offering decked SB boats! Cool! Seems like this would be a great option if you can figure out a way to keep your feet warm. I have ‘puff socks’ that might do the trick. I’m exclusively in cold water, so this is probably more of an issue for me than most folks.

  49. Luc, what is your recommendation for a bigger person (215-220ish) for a alpaca with thigh straps? I am debating on getting a classic with thigh straps or an expedition. The gnarwhal looks a bit more stable than I want. Thanks!

    1. Jay … Sorry to say, but you are right at the tipping point. My rule of thumb has been that >200 lbs is better off in a Gnarwhal. That said, I’m paddling the Wolverine/Expedition just fine at 200 lbs + gear. Even the WW Refuge was manageable for me this summer, and I LOVED the lighter weight in my pack.

      The Classic, which has slightly larger tubes than the Exped, would support your weight+gear a bit better. Aren’t you in a Classic now? But yes … you want thigh straps.

      The only drawback with the Gnarwhal is that it is heavy to carry.

      So … I don’t have an obvious recommendation for you. Ideally, you could try out a few different boats before making a decision. We should have done this in class!

      1. Thanks! I am in a classic now, and I am keeping it, but it is moving into more a of a backup/ loaner boat as it is getting old (lots of patches, and the zipper is getting cranky). My concern about the Gnarwhal is it looks like it is wider (and more stable?) than my classic. I am hoping for something that is going to help (force? ) with a bit more boat control / better form- is the Gnarwhal noticeably more stable than the classic, or is this a non issue? Thanks again for the advice!

        1. The Gnarwhal is wider and more stable. And your question is right on … I just don’t know the answer. Based on tube size, I would expect the Classic to be more playful. But the Gnarwhal hull is designed for whitewater … which makes me think it should be more playful.

          I had a Gnarwhal for one season and it was a great boat for big water (Grand Canyon). But I generally felt like I wasn’t big enough to drive it. You might be.

          It would be worth checking in with Alpacka or FB forums to see if someone else has a more recent perspective on the form-building capacity of the Classic vs. Gnarwhal.

          Or if you might still be a candidate for the Expedition. Alpacka lists the total weight capacity of the Exped at 350 lbs … I think this is the question I would ask (to Alpacka or FB) … even with 50lbs of gear you would be well below that capacity limit. Maybe my 200 lb rule of thumb is outdated?

Leave a Reply to Dennis RichardsCancel reply