Gerald Foodman wrote: > It is easily detectable. I have just done an experiment with the following > paddles, all of which I have owned for many years and all of which I am > used > to: A 216 cm Descente, big blade paddle, a 230 cm narrow blade old style > Werner Little Dipper, a 231 cm AT bent shaft paddle. I paddled the same > distance with each at a hard but comfortable pace without looking at the > watch until I finished. The distance was about 4 nautical miles and my > time > for each trial was 50 minutes, plus or minus 1 minute, or an average > slightly over 4 kts. I did not try to match the times; it just turned out > that way. Results? I was far more tired using the 216 Descente than > either > of the other two. It was not a subtle difference, but dramatic. The AT > was > also clearly more efficient than the Little Dipper, but the difference was > not that dramatic. Interesting. Subjective opinions based on this experience might be useful too. Do you think the difference (or magnitude of difference) was more due to paddle length, blade size, or what? (e.g. For canoe paddles, the shaft lenght is actully more important than overall paddle length, and probably affects efficiency as you describe.) > Someone else, with a different body type, different techniques would > probably come to different conclusion. But there is no doubt in my mind > that anyone trying a similar experiment would easily determine which paddle > was most efficient for him. Personal Qs re body type: hieght, weight, sleeve length, muscular vs. endurance type physique? (The efficient paddle question does fascinate me.) GaryJ *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************Received on Mon Jun 23 2003 - 06:40:46 PDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:31:08 PDT