Re: [Paddlewise] Paddling in a Straight Line

John Winters wrote:

> ...<BIG SNIP>... 
> 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?

We are in complete agreement on the above, particularly since you have
stated it as achieving "an end" (i.e., tracking). But once again it
seems to me that you are missing Clark's point. Of course a boat can be
designed to compensate for an inefficient paddling stroke that imparts a
strong turning force. Clark makes this very point. His contention is
that in doing so, you give up something else--some degree of
maneuverability. In other words, there is not *an* end, there are
multiple ends or objectives. In the design of the boat there are
tradeoffs between these objectives. While a stiff-tracking boat can be
made more or less maneuverable, improvements in the design with respect
to maneuverability can only partially compensate for the high tracking
stiffness. In short, while there are "two ways to skin a cat", not all
ways of "skinning the cat" are equally desirable.      

> Dan wrote:
> >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.

John responded:

> 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.

You have redefined the problem. Here and in your earlier comments (which
I snipped) you seem to be interpreting this 80% as a figure that applies
to a given boat. This misses the point. (The figure is meant to apply
across a population of boats and paddlers.) You also seem to be missing
the point by taking the numbers literally. Edison said that "Invention
is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration". It would be a bit
off-the-point to ask him how he came up with these exact numbers.
Moreover, Edison is not implying that inspiration is unimportant for
invention. He was simply pointing out that, in the end, invention
involves more drudgery than inspiration. There is no point in debating
whether 90% is the correct figure.

John continues:
> 
> 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. ...<SNIP>...

We must have read different articles. I didn't get this at all from what
Clark is saying. I would summarize his central points as follows:

(1) Many paddlers seem to feel that boat design is the key to boat
control, and that if they are having problems with tracking, the key is
to buy a stiffer-tracking boat. But there is a another way to "skin the
cat" --the development of an improved stroke. This latter approach has
the advantage of allowing paddlers to use boats that are more playful,
and yet still achieve good tracking. The key to finding this "better
way" begins with the recognition that the paddler is the most important
element in boat control.

(2) One way to achieve proper tracking is by using the forward stroke
described in the article. Clark says that if you follow his approach,
you can achieve proper tracking without resorting to a stiff-tracking
boat. He does not say that his stroke is the only stroke that will allow
you to accomplish this. Nor does he say that you should never vary your
stroke.   

I agree with the above. It strikes me as very sensible. Perhaps Clark's
tone turns people off, but the basic message is very sound. Implicit in
his article is the notion that design is very important. He favors
playful designs over stiff-tracking designs. If he thought that all
designs were equally good, he could not favor one type of design over
another. I see no "cavalier" disregard for design, or any other element
in the system. What I see is an attack on the all-too-frequent cavalier
disregard for the importance of technique.   

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