I have not paddled a Nanoq (yet), but I can offer an observation about the original Ken Taylor kayak. I have paddled a very faithful reproduction. The intent of the original built for Mr. Taylor was to give a stable design- so when you look at the Valley and the original you get a different idea of what comprises "stable" and from whose point of view. I have paddled a Valley Anas Acuta, but very early in my career. I don't know what can be said about its heavy sluggish feel, because I"m not sure it's the lines or the fact that it's a big heavy kayak. It is perfectly stable in flat conditions for even a novice. The SOF reproduction was nothing like an Anas Acuta. I paddled it for many hours all at once on a windy day with decent chop. On flat water it has a kind of feel that wants to slip from one side to the other, like you're balancing on a point. Like the bottom of the design. It has a lot of secondary stability, so in choppy waves it was easy to lean into the waves to find more support. Weathercocking was not much of an issue, but it was chop-the waves were close. Of course, the boat fits quite tightly, particularly as I am much taller than Mr. Taylor, but at the time even though I could get in all right I had fallen and skinned my knee pretty badly, and that happened to hit directly on the masik, so I couldn't really dig in as much as I would have liked. All-in-all, I would say that it is an exaggeration to say that they have any paddling characteristics that are terribly similar. They have a somewhat similar profile. I'm looking forward to trying the Nanoq/Alleq design, as one of Björn's design goals was to add speed. If you look at the tables on his web site, the Nanoq is slightly faster on paper than the Njörd.

m