New Alpacka Scout

[Doug G]

Well… Just a comment.   I was looking forward to the new Alpacka Scout.   The specs came out today.  Turns out it is 3″‘s shorter in the cockpit and 12 ounces heavier.

They made it more river worthy by making the boat 6 inches longer with a obviously more material in the ends (otherwise the cockpit wouldn’t be shorter).   You can add a TZip too.

That might appeal to some people here.   No way I could fit in that though.  I was hoping for something a tiny bit longer, or a lot lighter for high country lakes.   I’ll stick with my 4lb Curiyak that has a huge cockpit and works well in rivers, and wavy flat water.

Need something lighter Alpacka!

[Philip Tschersich]

I had Alpacka build me a Curiyak out of the new, lighter Scout materials last summer. Boat: 1,580 g (3.48 lb) w/o seat. Curiyak seat: 140 g (0.31 lb)

[Doug G]

That’s a nice boat and seems a much better option than the new Scout. 8 inches more leg room and more width for fishing, etc for about 4 ounces. Did some urban rafting with my Curiyak last weekend. Then road a Jump bike home. Those electric assist bikes feel like cheating. Getting waaaay off topic. Back to topic. I want something designed by Alpacka that is in the 2lb range for lakes…

[nunatak]

I have both a 2017 Scout (1326g) and a 2017 Anfibio Alpha XC (1410g). With my dog, and on trips featuring more paddling, I have to take the Anfibio with it’s 6″ longer cockpit. I’m over 6′ and find the Scout barely useable. I can imagine the newer shorter one really weeds out a large segment of users.

Alpacka is obviously not seeing a market in the type of customer needing a capable boat for the occasional paddle on an otherwise land based adventure. The trend has gone towards (much more photogenic) whitewater worthiness over low weight and bulk; with last year’s Scout as the only remaining option for backpackers.

[Richard Nisley]

Adventures

The definition of a “dream” packraft best suits the adventures we most often pursue.

[David Chenault]

“Alpacka is obviously not seeing a market in the type of customer needing a capable boat for the occasional paddle on an otherwise land based adventure. The trend has gone towards (much more photogenic) whitewater worthiness over low weight and bulk; with last year’s Scout as the only remaining option for backpackers.”

My assumption is that the biggest market growth in packrafting is not in true backcountry stuff, but in either day trips or in sidecountry whitewater.  Hard to look at what Alpacka has done in the last three years and have any other conclusion.  The newer boats paddle amazingly, and they’re great in that they can be stowed in your car and easily handled by smaller folks, taken on bike shuttles, etc.  I just wish Alpacka would do something like offer a deck on the Caribou, or more ideally make an evolved Curiyak with an UL whitewater deck.  It could be 4 -4.5 pounds all in, which would be awesome.

[Chad Lorenz]

The “sidecountry” trend that Dave describes is real: Kokopelli’s newest raft is going to be a whopping 18.5lbs.

I asked about weight creep in the whitewater line during Alpacka’s Facebook live feed a few days ago. I’m still looking for a sub 6lb whitewater boat for backcountry use, my decked Gnarwhal is nearly 10lbs. Thor mentioned a dwindling supply of 100D Vectran and alluded to the fact that such a boat may crest 2500$.

They are still a custom shop, and if $ is no object they may be willing to build you a boat to spec?

[Brad Rogers]

I think there is a market for some of the older, simpler Alpacka style designs.  Perhaps someone will fill that hole.

[Ben Kilbourne]

I’ve been emailing with them quite a bit about trying to fill that gap for the person who hikes 60% of the time and floats 40% of the time. It doesn’t seem to be a priority. I suggested an Alpaca model with 10″ middle tubes, tapering to fatter bow and stern, old (3″ shorter) butt, made of Scout materials, and with a clip in seat. I’m guessing it would be right around 4lbs.

Maybe we all just need to let them know that there is a market for such a boat.

 

[Brad Rogers]

Perhaps if Alpacka won’t do that kind of boat, someone else will.  Would a Kokopelli Hornet Lite with a deck be light enough?

[Glade S]

Some of us recently got together to compare 2017 and 2019 Scouts.  The internal cockpit length of the 2019 Scout was actually about 1” longer than the 2017, contrary to the specs on Alpacka’s website.  The 2019 cockpit is also wider at the front vs. tapered on the 2017, providing more room. Finally, the side tubes are indeed smaller in diameter.  This allows your knees to droop more, creating slightly more cockpit space.  The bow is dramatically larger, perhaps unnecessarily so.  The tail is only slightly larger, and I — for one — would have sacrificed a little of the added front volume to enable a larger tail.

Our group consensus was that the smaller diameter side tubes are just begging for water to pour in when you find yourself sideways in a riffle. I’ll reserve further judgement until I have an opportunity to paddle both back-to-back, hopefully this weekend.

[Glade S]

[Ben Kilbourne]

I was there scrutinizing scouts with Glade and can agree with everything he said.

[Glade S]

One additional observation is that the nose and tail are the lowest points of the 2019 Scout, with the side tubes being suspended off the ground a little bit.  This made the floor sit a little above the ground vs. it being more or less flat on the ground in the 2017 model.  You can see this in one of the images on Alpacka’s Scout page:

UPDATE:  I reviewed video footage (file size is too large to post here), and you can see that the 2019 boat actually rocks back and forth side to side resting on the lowest points of the nose and tail.  By comparison, the 2017 boat sits flat on the ground and does not rock.

[nunatak]

Good to hear about the incredulous website specs re cockpit size.

Did you get a weight on them both?

[Glade S]

2017: 45.45 oz with no seat and with 4 added grab loops. An Alpacka Scout seat adds 5.89oz for a total of 51.34oz.
2019: 54oz with 3 added loops and no seat. So maybe 59.89oz with a seat?

[Doug G]

Is the internal 38″ measurement incorrect on the new scout?

[Richard Nisley]

The increased water line length of the 2019 Scout should make it noticeably faster than the earlier Scout versions.

[Glade S]

Doug,

I can’t remember the exact numbers, but it was just about 1” longer than my 2017. Maybe 0.75”, but it definitely wasn’t any shorter. Also, the wider front of the cockpit and the smaller diameter tubes make it feel bigger inside. Unless you’re really short, you don’t sit in a Scout the same way you would in, say, a Yak. Your knees are bent and kind of lean against the  side tubes. With them being smaller, and the front of the cockpit being wider, I had a little bit more room. That said, I’m 5’ 8” with a 31” inseam, so take it with a grain of salt.  I just worry about how low the side tube tops would sit relative to the water line.  The owner of the boat just floated the Dirty with it with no problems, though, and I think he’s 6’ 1”.

As for the specs on the website, Molly and Thor have both said the new boat cockpit is indeed shorter than the old one. I can only report that that wasn’t what we found. Maybe they’re measuring at a different point?

Richard:  I suspect you’re right about the speed. Overall, the boat seems to split the difference between the 2017 Scout and my old CuriYak.

UPDATE: I checked with Ben, and the measurements were made tube-to-tube, not along the floor. I re-measured my 2017, and it’s about 40.5”. Ben seems to recall that the 2019 was 41.5”, but I don’t have it in front of me to confirm. But 1” isn’t much of a difference, and I’m not even sure how tight their tolerances are from boat to boat. Let’s call them close to the same.

[Dan Ransom]

Can confirm, the length of the cockpit on my new scout is 41.5 inches when measured from the center of the tubes, bow to stern.  I can’t tell a meaningful difference in cockpit length between the two models.  The other differences Glade and Ben summed up pretty well.

I’ve put a couple days on my new scout on the Dirty Devil here in Utah, and I will say I was pretty stoked on it.  The main caveat is I am 6’1″ and 200 lbs, so I’m definitely pushing the limits of weight and length for what the boat is optimal for.  I would be even more psyched if it had a bigger butt still, as the tubes sit a lot lower in the rear.  I did take on water over the tubes in splashy waves, to be expected.

Also pretty pleased with how it handed bumping and scraping on the Dirty, worked well.

[Author]

Posts