Joq wrote; << ...what are the advantages and what can you do with [Greenland paddles] that you can't do with a lighter, shorter, more efficient modern paddle? >> >One advantage for me is that I can cruise all day with a Greenland paddle and >not feel too awfully beat up, where my Lendal Archipelago will trash my arms >and shoulders after a long paddle. Maybe that's my technique or stroke or >something --- and I'm not a fanatic about Greenlands. Maybe they're more just >forgiving of a lousy stroke. Bottom line for me --- they work. > I can do the same thing with my paddle. I think if I knew why a paddle "worked" for me then I would be able to find a paddle that may "work" even better. Not a big deal to you young strong men and women but a big deal to old farts like me who really do need more efficient boats and paddles just to keep up. Without them we may as well paddle solo and then we get chewed out for taking such big risks. Kirk wrote; >I can only do one handed, (with help of the paddle as buoyancy) rolls with the greenland. None of my other paddles have sufficient bouyancy. I also haven't done well doing a sculling roll with anything but the greenland. Have you tried it with a higher volume modern paddle? Say one with an airfoil shape as opposed to the flat blades most have? Maybe you should keep building Euro style blades until you get one that really fits. :-) >I suppose you meant skills for those of you who don't capsize.... >For longer distance paddles I find I tire differently using the Greenland >than using one of my modern paddles (wing, ultralight lightening, or bow). >I tend to wear out the muscles in my shoulders and hands using a larger >bladed paddle. With the Greenland I run out of energy before any particular >muscle starts to give in. Nahh. Why not include those who capsize a lot too? I find I tire faster with the Greenland style. Why? Maybe because my blade (Modern) is the right size, my paddle is lighter, my shaft is the right flexibility, and who knows what? That, of course, is the question. Why? If we knew why the Greenland paddle was so good then Hank and his minions could make a modern paddle that was better. Or then, are we saying that there is nothing and can be nothing better? Gordon wrote about art and science. Why are the two separate? Is asking why a thing is as it is an affront to art? Will not art stand up to questioning? Maybe art is and science tries to explain why it is. Is that bad? Julio wrote; >Greenland paddling is just a style of paddling. The paddle is different, >as well the strokes, and the things that people do with them. There is >as much reason to say that one style is better than another as there is >to say that wering a green shirt is better than wearing a blue one. But why? Why can't you do the same style of paddling with a modern blade? Why is the one better than the other? >The Greenland style paddle moves in smaller circles than the modern one. >A wing paddle is most effective when held vertical to the water, and >that blade goes from that high position to below the water level on >the other side. A Greenland paddle just jets a few inches over the water >before it dives again, that is why it takes less work. You will have to explain this to me. If the lower style is more efficient (less work) why do racers paddle differently? Seems to me they would want to do less work. There are those who paddle very upright and find it more relaxing than the low style. How is this explained. I have heard here that people just have to give the Greenland paddle a chance. Isn't the opposite true? Dana wrote; >I have been using a Greenland paddle for quite a few years and each time it >amusing to me on the merits given to it by people just discovering it. Yes >it takes less energy to use,cause your stroke is shorter and you pace is 1 >1/2 to twice as fast. The overall sq. inch surface of each blade is close >to most modern paddles. Instead of a stroke from your ankles to your hips, >it is from about your knees to your hips.Some thing long and skinny passes >through water easier than some thing short and fat (that comment resembles >no one in particular). But with all the hype you would think its a modern >miracle but in fact it is a ancient miracle. I am confused. If the Greenland paddle slips through the water more easily then isn't more energy lost? If so, why does it use less energy? Seems to be contradiction. It seems to me that if the Greenland paddle slips through the water more it must have a lower drag coefficient than the modern style of blade. If so, why can't the modern style be made smaller yet so it will have the same net drag but will have a smaller blade and be lighter than the Greenland style? Another puzzle. The Greenland stroke is wide (well away from the side of the boat) as such does it not tend to cause more turning and thus waste energy that would be spent on propulsion forward? Just asking. *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************Received on Wed Jul 22 1998 - 05:12:17 PDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:29:58 PDT