Re: [Paddlewise] Paddling in a Straight Line

Dan wrote;

(SNIP)

>Nothing he has said implies that all boats are equally easy to
>paddle in a straight line.

Dan, I believe you may have read my comments incorrectly. Nothing I said
implied or was intended to imply that Clark said that all boats were
equally easy to paddle in a straight line. I read his statements much
differently from you because I come from a different background.  I took
issue with his suggestion that strokes are more important than the boat. As
I pointed out the boat/ paddler/ paddle combination is a system where the
objective is the key and can be reached in a variety of ways not all of
which involve a specific stroke style, mechanics, person, or boat. I did
not say the boat was more important than the stroke or the paddle or
anything else. I said quite clearly that the combination was a system. Part
of that system is the boat, part is the paddle, and part is the paddler. To
suggest that there is one specific stroke that should be used strikes me as
being just as unreasonable  as saying that only one type of boat should be
used or one type of paddler. I hope that helps to clarify things.

>You also seem to suggest that Clark is implying that manoeuvrability is
>a variable that cannot be controlled independently of tracking
>stiffness. Nothing he has said implies this.  There are, however, limits
>to the extent to which tracking and manoeuvrability can be varied
>independently. If you disagree with this, then we could really use your
>design talents to design a boat that is as manoeuvrable as a Dagger
>Redline and as stiff-tracking as Seda Glider.

What I said was that the boat could be designed to offset (or augment) a
specific paddling style and that fact suggests that the balance between
what one aspect of the system does and what another does is variable. Yes,
there appear to be limits to what design can accomplish but are there not
limits to what strokes can accomplish? Are there not limits to what
paddlers
can accomplish? Is it not possible that each element can work with the
others to achieve an end and the combinations can be infinitely variable?

>You seem to feel that Clark is dismissing design as unimportant, which
>no doubt rubs you (as a designer) the wrong way.  I read Clark's piece
>quite differently.  He is not saying that design is irrelevant, he is
>simply stating that design is secondary in importance to technique. I
>agree with him. Whether or not you agree, you cannot disprove this by
>pointing out that there are significant differences between designs.


You may have got the wrong impression about what I said coming from your
background as a non designer. It is possible to disprove Clark's 80 percent
comment simply by showing that a boat can be designed that can offset a
particular technique thus varying the percentage of importance. Of course,
it would be nice to know how he arrived at his numbers. In fact, Dan
commented that he didn't know if his numbers were correct.

To Clark and Dan (and others) design may be secondary to technique. To some
one else (and maybe a lot of others) that may not be the case.

My issue is the heavy bias towards technique and the virtual ignoring of
how boats, people, and objectives vary. This cavalier attitude toward the
other elements in the boat/paddler combination and the variability in
objectives seems to surface when ever experts get involved. As I pointed
out, I tend to get wrapped up in design related aspects of paddling and
have to hold myself in check (although I am hardly an expert). While Clark
may be quite right about the proper stroke (I pointed out that I agreed
with much of what Clark said on that) he appeared to ignore that there are
many ways to skin this particular cat and they might have equal or even
greater viability.

Nick wrote;

> I recently installed a retractable skeg in a customer's (Donna) boat. She
>likes it and she says it helps her. I finally got a chance to try it
>myself, and I decided I felt more in control with it retracted than with
it
>deployed. So when Donna paddles the boat she finds it easier to control
>with and I find it easier without. I never have any trouble with tracking
>with this design and deploying the skeg makes fine tuning more difficult,
>where Donna does not have the skills yet to maintain the more gross
control
>over the boat in adverse conditions, so the skeg provides that for her. I
>predict she will use the skeg less as she gets a better feel for how the
>boat responds.

This provides a good example of how the boat can compensate for stroke
mechanics or strength. Donna may decide to stop using the skeg but some
people will not and some might even gravitate to a rudder. The importance
of strokes and equipment gets blurred with objectives and circumstances.

If any of you read that I denigrated the importance of the stroke, let me
put you at ease before you get your shorts in a knot. I consider all
elements of paddling important. I am not knowledgeable enough to say that
one is more important than the other but do feel that all are important to
varying degrees depending on conditions and objectives. Some may find
solace in their stroke while others may find solace in their boat, stroke
and person.

Cheers,
John Winters
Redwing Designs
Specialists in Human Powered Watercraft
http://home.ican.net/~735769/




Since all of us come from different backgrounds it can be expected that we
will read a piece differently. Perhaps we can reach a consensus by stating
our own cases and clarifying why we seem to extract different meanings.




***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List
Submissions:     paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net
Subscriptions:   paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net
Website:         http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/
***************************************************************************