Re: [Paddlewise] Paddling in a Straight Line

Dan wrote;

)SNIP)

>
>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.

Well, I think, we will have to agree to disagree about Clark's point. I
read without trying to read between the lines since I don't know him
and could not assume to know what he really meant.

(SNIP)

> While a stiff-tracking boat can be
>made more or less manoeuvrable, improvements in the design with respect
>to manoeuvrability can only partially compensate for the high tracking
>stiffness.

In this case you have the advantage over me because I don't know what can't
be done nor do I know the definition of  "high tracking stiffness" or when
it ceases to be high and becomes moderate or whatever.


>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.


I think you misread me. I was talking about a range of boats also. In a
later post I tried to demonstrate that the range was quite wide. Perhaps
that post did not come through quickly enough.


>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.

You may have missed my point by assuming that I took his figure literally.

>(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.

Maybe you read a different article or at least interpreted what he said
differently. Could your interpretation have been influenced in some way by
your experience and personal opinions? :-)

>
>(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.

Maybe we did read the same article. :-)

>
>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.

Maybe we didn't read the same article. :-)

Oh well, that's life. :-)

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/
***************************************************************************