Hello paddlewisers I haven't been active on this list for a few months, but I've occasionally been lurking around the digest. Hope you all had a good summer on the water, or winter for the hemispherically challenged :-). My comments re the paddling in a straight line/skeg thread. I first got a boat with a retractable skeg two years ago (P&H capella), and initially I found that most of the time I preferred the feel of the boat with the skeg down (where it felt more like my previous no skeg, straight as an arrow, better lean this 30degress if you want it to turn boat). I now find that I very rarely deploy the skeg - only really if I'm paddling on a relatively long straight course when there is a quartering wind ** and ** the sea state is relatively calm. In these conditions tuning the boat with the skeg to neutral with respect to the wind is very helpful. However, most of my paddling is on an exposed craggy coast where there is effectively no protected water and windy conditions with no sea state are unfortunately rare. Commonly for me if there is wind there is also a confused sea state, which has far more effect on the boats handling than any weather helm. In windy conditions I now usually opt for the more playful manoeuvrable feel of the boat with the skeg retracted, mainly because: In a confused sea the boat is constantly being knocked about and moved around (whether you have a rudder, skeg or whatever - the playing field itself is moving around :-). A manoeuvrable boat is more easily returned to its course. If there is any sea state the wind strength is constantly changing depending on whether you are in a trough or a crest. The boat is far more responsive and predictable while surfing (during which stern rudder strokes are far more important in maintaining course than the skeg) The disadvantages of the skeg are as I see it trivial: It takes up a bit of space in the rear hatch, and it is susceptible to damage - but this is more of a pilot error issue. (I have had experience of being washed sideways over a submerged rock with the skeg deployed - the skeg itself was unscathed but the control cable was kinked so badly where it entered the skeg box that the skeg was jammed in the half way down position until I could get the boat into the workshop, a tad inconvenient. Oops.). So.... I rarely use the skeg, but I strongly recommend them. You can have a manoeuvrable and straight running boat in one, and you can change the whole feel of the boat with one finger. horses for courses of course Cheers Colin Calder 57º19'N 2º10'W *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
Dave wrote; >(http://www.paddles.com/library/straight.html) has an interesting >treatise by Clark Bowlen entitled "Paddling a Sea Kayak in a Straight >Line --Straight Talk". Food for thought. I'd be interested in reaction >from folks who have studied efficient paddling. Despite many things that I agree with in the article (particularly the mechanics of the stroke, its effects, and the value of shorter paddles than are commonly sold) I think it puts forward a rather one dimensional approach to the problem. For example the comment that "....tracking is 80% paddler and 20% boat" can easily be disproved. For example, sprint canoes must track straight with minimal attention to turning. Thus, the boats are designed to do just that. In short, the boat is designed to suit the need. The same principle, when applied to sea kayaks, can produce a straight tracking boat that, when coupled with a shape that turns easily when heeled, achieves both objectives - manoeuvrability and straight tracking. More over, I suspect even Clark will agree that some boats are difficult to control and if he hasn't yet paddled one I would be happy to point him in the proper direction. :-) The kayak can be viewed as a system in which hull, strokes, paddle, and paddler are merged into a whole that, hopefully, fulfils the paddler's objectives. Bowlen appears to recognise only two kinds of paddlers, those who "... want to kick back, relax, and still go pretty straight" and those who "...paddle better, if you want a boat that will play in the waves, surf, do eddy turns in tidal rivers, meander up marsh creeks without a struggle..." I would suggest that a whole range of paddlers fits in between that can benefit from boats designed to suit their paddling style. There are boats that track well without a great deal of attention and yet still "play in the waves, surf, do eddy turns in tidal rivers, meander up marsh creeks without a struggle". When Bowlen says,"I think because kayaks are easier to paddle straight than canoes, that kayaks actually foster bad technique -- to the point that their design must compensate for it." I think he ignores the many different objectives in kayaking. This seems to me to be one of failings in taking an elitist attitude to paddling - the idea that one's is the "right" way and the "right" objective. While there may be "better" techniques that maximise power and efficiency does that mean that being less that 100% efficient is "bad"? I fall into this trap as well when talking about boat design. To me, greater efficiency is "Better" and it may be - if it matters to the paddler. When it doesn't matter and doesn't put the paddler at physical risk then "Better" isn't really "better" at all. It is just different. I was interested in his comment that, "The shorter the paddle, the more horizontally it can be held and still maintain a short lever arm. This is the basis of Greenland technique, which uses short paddles held horizontally. " This comment does not fit with the paddle lengths provided by Brand, Peterson, and others. It also ignores that many boats with relatively high freeboard and wide beam that might require long paddles just to reach the water. Since I have heard this comment before I wonder if it does not reflect a local application of the term "Greenland paddle" and may be responsible for some of the confusion surrounding term. So, other than a bit of excess zeal, overly aggressive use of the verb "to be", and an occasional technical lapse I think the article presents useful information that agrees with what I have been promoting here and elsewhere. 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/ ***************************************************************************
John Winters wrote: ...<snip>... > For example the comment that "....tracking is 80% paddler and 20% boat" can > easily be disproved. For example, sprint canoes must track straight with > minimal attention to turning. Thus, the boats are designed to do just that. > In short, the boat is designed to suit the need. The same principle, when > applied to sea kayaks, can produce a straight tracking boat that, when > coupled with a shape that turns easily when heeled, achieves both > objectives - manoeuvrability and straight tracking. More over, I suspect > even Clark will agree that some boats are difficult to control and if he > hasn't yet paddled one I would be happy to point him in the proper > direction. :-) John, you seem to be missing the point. First, it does not follow from Clark's statement that differences in boat design are insignificant. Quite the contrary. For any given paddler, the difference in performance between two different models is 100% due to the design (because in this case we are holding the paddler-related variables constant). Thus any given paddler will be much better off in a sprint race paddling a sprint canoe. Nothing that Clark says contradicts this, and your observations in no way "disprove" Clark's assertion. His point is that the variation in directional stability across different paddler/kayaker combinations (where we are changing both the paddler and the kayak) is 80% due to differences in the paddler-related variables. I don't know if his numbers are correct, but you certainly can't disprove him by asserting the (rather obvious) point that some boats are easier to control than others. Nothing he has said implies that all boats are equally easy to paddle in a straight line. You also seem to suggest that Clark is implying that maneuverability 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 maneuverability can be varied independently. If you disgree with this, then we could really use your design talents to design a boat that is as maneuverable as a Dagger Redline and as stiff-tracking as Seda Glider. 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. Dan Hagen Bellingham, Washington *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
Here's another quote to consider on the importance of the paddler versus design. This one comes from a "real" sea kayaker, not some reformed-canoeist wannabe. :-) Frank Goodman, in an article in Ocean Paddler (Summer 1998 issue) states the following: "Variations of paddler performance will create far greater problems in extreme conditions than differences between the designs of kayaks. In fact different levels of skill will show up huge variations of performance of kayaks of identical design even..." Note that Goodman is not arguing that design is unimportant. He is simply stating that when the going gets rough, paddler-related variables are far more important in determining performance than are design-related variables. Obviously any given paddler will be better off in a "good" design than in a "bad" design. But the most important element in improving performance is skill development, not boat design. (Apologizes to John Winters for abuse of the verb "to be", but I have never considered this list to be a place where it is fashionable to avoid the use of absolutist statements. :-) After pondering Goodman's point about extreme conditions, I have done a "recalculation" of Clark's 80-20 rule to factor in variations in paddling conditions. Having increased the formula's weight for Gale-force conditions and above, I would now suggest the Clark's rule is a bit off. (Good thing that I haven't engraved my hull yet.) I would now assert that it is 83.7% paddler, 16.3% boat. :-) 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/ ***************************************************************************
John Winters wrote: > I was interested in his comment that, "The shorter the paddle, the more > horizontally it can be held and still maintain a short lever arm. This is > the basis of Greenland technique, which uses short paddles held > horizontally. " This comment does not fit with the paddle lengths provided > by Brand, Peterson, and others. It also ignores that many boats with > relatively high freeboard and wide beam that might require long paddles > just to reach the water. Since I have heard this comment before I wonder if > it does not reflect a local application of the term "Greenland paddle" and > may be responsible for some of the confusion surrounding term. Yes, indeed. This summer I made 80 miles in the Mediterranean with a Valley Skerray. Since it is a beamier boat than my local skin on frame kayak, and has a higher freeboard, and larger volume, I decided to use the Feathercraft version of a Greenland paddle, which has longer shaft and blades. A short Greenland paddle on a boat with high free board would force the paddler to make very vertical strokes in order to reach the water, which spoils one of the kay benefits of the Greenland paddle -- the low angle position with respect to the water. In the book "Skin Boats of Greenland" one can appreciate the extremely long paddles that are used in East Greenland, where high volume boats are used, versus the short paddles of West Greenland, where low volume kayaks are preferred. By the way, did you folks notice the last name of the current Greenland champion? Maligiaq Padilla. It seems that we Spaniards have made it to the last corner of the world. :-) - Julio *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
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/ ***************************************************************************
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/ ***************************************************************************
>(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. > Implicit in >his article is the notion that design is very important. He favors >playful designs over stiff-tracking designs. Consider the Eddyline Raven (used without rudder) and the Mariner Express. Both are playful designs. Neither is stiff tracking. Both are easy to turn. Yet the Express is infinitely easier to control down weather. The comparisons should not be made between stiff tracking and playful designs. Rather between good and poor designs within a tracking category. Jerry *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
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/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:32:52 PDT