Dan wrote; First, Dan, thanks for responding to my questions without getting your shorts in a knot. Some Greenland paddle users have not been so helpful. (SNIP) >The higher angle stroke, when done properly, *is* more efficient, and >the difference in efficiency becomes important at race speeds (or when >sprinting, for example to catch a wave). However the difference in >efficiency is very small at the speeds at which most kayakers cruise. >Moreover, the high-angle stroke is somewhat more difficult to master, >and if done improperly (or with an improperly sized paddle) there is a >significant reduction in efficiency gain. With sufficiently poor >technique (or with a sufficient error in paddle sizing) the "gain" may >be negative, and the Greenland paddle may actually result in less >work. Good point but isn't the same true for the Greenland paddle? Seems to me (and the comments about building many Greenland paddles until you get it right bear it out) that sizing the paddle is important. Also it seems that it is very important to do the Greenland stroke correctly if one accepts what people have said here about learning how to do it properly. I recall people even suggesting a video so you could see how it should be done. >John also asks: >> >> 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? > >It doesn't use less energy, it uses more energy, but the difference is >trivial. Proponents of Greenland paddles point out that the effect of >the slippage is to mimic the effects of using a "lower gear" in cycing, >reducing stress. I say "mimics" because it is not quite the same--there >is no slippage when using a lower gear on a bicycle. A more efficient >way of reducing the "gear" of your paddle is to use a shorter shaft (but >with a modern blade), in combination with a more vertical stroke. But >again, the difference in efficiency is trivial for most folks. Good point again. But how does this explain the belief that the Greenland paddle has some kind of superiority? If what Dan says is true, it really isn't better at all. It is just different and maybe not so good (from an efficiency standpoint). That isn't the message I have been getting so maybe I am reading the posts wrong? >> 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? > >It could, but the cost of customising the grip size, etc., for each >individual paddler would be prohibitive. A very substantial advantage >of the Greenland paddle is that it is possible to make and modify such a >paddle at very low cost. One can get a paddle that is highly >customized. The cost of producing "one-off" modern paddles is much >higher. I'm sure that there are many folks who have a great time making >and customizing their Greenland paddles. In the end they have something >that works quite well, even if there is some (trivial) loss in >efficiency. Moreover, there may be some gain in ease of rolling (as you >acknowledge). So you end up with a low-cost, highly customized paddle >that is fun to make, easy to use, nearly as efficient as a modern >paddle, and facilitates rolling. What is it again that you don't >understand? I am not sure I see this. Yes, making custom one-off paddles is probably prohibitively expensive but making one off wood paddles is pretty much the same in cost regardless of type isn't it? Aside from needing some masking tape and glue the cost of materials is pretty much the same for making both types of paddle isn't it? In fact, if one uses the Culpeper method of making a paddle too large and then cutting it down to size may even be less expensive in the long run. I guess I don't what makes the Greenland paddle better. Is it just because it is easier to make at home? Is that what people have been saying here? > >> 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? > >Absolutely. Although once again it is easy to overstate the importance >of this at low speeds. Good point but then why do the users of Greenland paddles claim such efficiency and ease of paddling if it really isn't easier and even if it was easier it can't be noticed or isn't important? Dan seems to point out at least two ways in which the Greenland paddle is less efficient. I will take his word for it that the difference is small for the time being but that doesn't explain why the one group of paddlers feels that the opposite is true and dramatically so. Is it all in the mind? Cheers, John Winters Redwing Designs Specialists in Human Powered Watercraft http://home.ican.net/~735769/ *************************************************************************** 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 - 11:38:05 PDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:29:58 PDT