Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Old Town Penobscot 174 (Allagash)

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    260

    Default Old Town Penobscot 174 (Allagash)

    Maker's Spec


    Length 17' 4" / 5.3 m
    Width 36" / 91.4 cm
    Width at 4 Waterline 34" / 86.3 cm
    Bow Height 22" / 55.9 cm
    Depth 14" / 35.6 cm
    Weight 83 lbs. / 37.6 kg
    Capacity 1,449 lbs. / 657.2 kg

    Maker's Write Up
    Named after the Native American tribe that has inhabited Old Town, Maine, since before recorded history and from whom we've gained immeasurable boat-building knowledge the Penobscot is an homage to their superb craftsmanship, sense of design and navigational skills.
    • Polyethylene decks with grab handles
    • Vinyl gunwales
    • Wood webbed seats
    • Unstained ash thwart and yoke

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Bury st edmunds Suffolk
    Posts
    55

    Default

    i used to own one of allagash 174 untill recently its a great boat for loads and carring people but i found it very hard to solo paddle and a nightmere in winds but other than that it was my first open canoe and i did like it a lot but it had to go due to weight and size.

    p.s i think you got the weight wrong on the review the weight of the 17.4 is 34kg you have stated the weight of the 16ft version.
    Last edited by Silvergirl; 2nd-March-2007 at 03:32 PM. Reason: Moved as I think it was supossed to be here originally
    MARK (suffolk_mac)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Keynsham near Bristol
    Posts
    3,751

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by suffolk_mac View Post
    p.s i think you got the weight wrong on the review the weight of the 17.4 is 34kg you have stated the weight of the 16ft version.
    Why would the weight of the 17 ft version be less than the 16 ft one?
    Keith

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Angus, Scotland
    Posts
    2,884

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KeithD View Post
    Why would the weight of the 17 ft version be less than the 16 ft one?
    Its not.

    The weight in the first post is what the maufacturer says. Sulfolk Mac's post had originally been made in the Penobscot 17 thread and the Penobscot is 29 kg. The old town website seems to refer to the Allagash as a Penobscot 174, leading to confusion .
    'There is no wealth but life itself.'

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Eastern Canada
    Posts
    6,971

    Default

    Allagash and the Penobscot are basically the same hull with the Allagash being made from polylink 3 which is heavier than the Royalex. Old Town also changed the name of the Discovery to the Kineo but dropped the idea when the peasants showed up with pitch forks and torches.
    Lloyd

    Sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're the bug...


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    West Yorkshire
    Posts
    3,656

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pblanc
    The Penobscot 174 started life as the Discovery 174 and was later renamed the Allagash 174 and is now the Penobscot 174. Compared to Old Town's popular Royalex Penobscot 17, the Penobscot 174 has a little less arch in the hull bottom cross-section, is a little longer, a little broader, and considerably heavier.

    The Penobscot 174 and the Discovery 169 are rather similar canoes in that they are both very large capacity tandem boats. While both are quite stable, the Discovery 169 is a little broader at the waterline and has a little flatter still hull bottom cross-section so it would probably feel a bit more stable than the Penobscot 174. Even though the Discovery is shorter, being an inch wider Old Town lists its weight as a bit greater than that of the Penobscot 174. I have lifted both and in my opinion they are exactly the same weight: too damn heavy.

    I have never paddled a Penobscot 164. It appears to be a downsized Penobscot 174. Assuming it has a similar hull configuration, being a foot shorter with nearly the same waterline width, I would expect it to be somewhat slower and it would, of course, have a bit less carrying capacity, but would be somewhat more tolerable to tote around if you don't require a rather enormous boat.
    See here.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •