PaddleWise by thread

From: Peter Treby <ptreby_at_ozemail.com.au>
subject: [Paddlewise] High Aspect Ratio Paddles
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 18:56:14 +1000
Thanks to Peter Chopelas for showing that high aspect ratio paddles are more
efficient.
Why don't all long distance paddlers use them, particularly if they are
nearly twice as efficient? Should the same paddler, paddling over the same
distance in comparable conditions, expend nearly half as much energy with a
high aspect ratio paddle as with a low aspect ratio paddle? If so, this is
such a dramatic difference that high AR paddles should take over for most
tourers. But, they don't.
Putting it the other way, if a fit paddler was able to input greater energy
into paddling with a high AR paddle, shouldn't he or she go faster and last
longer than with a low AR paddle?
Does anyone have experience of longer distance races where paddlers use both
high AR and low AR paddles? Who wins, and who is in best shape at the finish
line? If a race is not the best practical test, what is the speed cut-off
point where a high AR paddle comes in? The equations seem to suggest that
high AR paddles are more efficient at any speed, assuming an equal blade
area.
Am I paddling up the wrong creek with these questions?
Cheers, PT.

***************************************************************************
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/
***************************************************************************
From: wsmith16 <wsmith16_at_snet.net>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] High Aspect Ratio Paddles
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 05:58:48 -0400
Peter,

I think there's more physics to it than just being twice as efficient
(Although, I'm no expert -- I'm working solely from observation here). The
hull speed of the boat, paddler's overall strength, etc, still are huge
factors in the equation.

This past christmas, I gave my girlfriend a custom Greenland paddle that I
built for her. She had paddled for several seasons with a low aspect ratio
paddle manufactured for racing, thinking it would improve her speed. She
could keep up for half the day, and then was always the last in at the
end. The first time she used the Greenland, she kept up with me for 7
miles heading into a 20 knot wind, and has improved her ability to keep up
all day dramatically. She now keeps up all day with just about any group
when she uses the Greenland.

Even though I'm a Greenland paddle enthusiast, I can't say it's all the
paddle so much as it is that the paddle is more suited to her ability and
strength/stamina. I think the high aspect ratio paddles conserve enough
energy to make a difference over a given distance, and that distance is
individual to each paddler. I would think a guy like Greg Barton would do
as well with any paddle over any distance, but the average mortal will see
a difference.

In short, the goal is to tailor the propeller to the motor to get the most
out of it, in my opinion.

Wayne


> Should the same paddler, paddling over the same
> distance in comparable conditions, expend nearly half as much energy
with a
> high aspect ratio paddle as with a low aspect ratio paddle? If so, this
is
> such a dramatic difference that high AR paddles should take over for
most
> tourers. But, they don't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------

Wayne Smith
wsmith16_at_snet.net

Check out my sea kayaking & homebrewing page:
http://pages.cthome.net/wsmith16/home.html



***************************************************************************
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/
***************************************************************************
From: PeterO <rebyl_kayak_at_iprimus.com.au>
subject: RE: [Paddlewise] High Aspect Ratio Paddles
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 20:04:39 +1000
Peter Treby Wrote
> Thanks to Peter Chopelas for showing that
> high aspect ratio paddles are more efficient.
> Why don't all long distance paddlers use them,


G'Day Peter, Peter and Paddlewise,

If you're paddling at sea and with so many shapes and sizes of people and
boats, so many idiosyncratic but effective paddling styles and the infinite
variety of sea states, is it possible that chaos reigns and there's no fixed
answer?

For example I choose a short paddle with long blades because: - 1. It
maximises my bodies ability to efficiently do work over long distances. 2.
Its slippage through the water is forgiving at the end of a long trip when
tiredness might make me forget to closely link my upper body and shoulders,
so I avoid tendon injury. 3. The long blade and short shaft let me use
broken vertical paddle strokes to keep the boat (a Pittarak) moving straight
in a following sea. On the other hand if there is going to be a lot of surf
involved I'll choose a low aspect ratio paddle because I can roll better
with it and my high aspect ratio paddle is not as strong.

I'm guessing that many people will have different but equally valid ways of
optimising their person/boat/sea efficiency and that physics and biophysics
are not the most important issues when at sea.

I'll bet a decent bottle of red that they are important for racing on flat
water though.

All the best, PeterO




***************************************************************************
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/
***************************************************************************
From: Michael Daly <michaeldaly_at_rogers.com>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] High Aspect Ratio Paddles
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 11:22:50 -0400
On 10 Jun 2003 at 18:56, Peter Treby wrote:

> Thanks to Peter Chopelas for showing that high aspect ratio paddles
> are more efficient.

As Bob points out, Peter's analysis is based on some assumptions that 
are not valid and we've argued with him about it several times (this 
is the third or fourth time he's posted it here or on Baidarka), 
however, he takes it personally and will not discuss it.  Another 
example of the flaws in it is the horsepower requirements he 
estimates for a Euro paddler; 0.4hp.  I've pointed out that a normal 
human being is incapable of this level of output.  When I suggested a 
lower value being appropriate, he said _my_ estimate was too high.  
However, he still hasn't corrected his analysis to reflect what he 
admits is an unrealistic value.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:  You cannot prove a 
physical phenomena with mathematics.  You can prove a mathematical 
concept with mathematics.  A mathematical model of a physical process 
must be demonstrated to be reasonable by experiments and those 
experiments have not been done by Peter.  Hence his "proof" stands as 
nothing but mathematical fiddling.

Another issue is that he will not resolve his definition of 
efficiency with that of everyone else.  Those who have done the 
experiments know that a _low_ aspect ratio paddle is more efficient 
(see "The Shape Of The Canoe" by John Winters).  

Those of us who have paddled with various paddles know from 
experience that the high aspect ratio paddles tend to be lower in 
efficiency.  As I said in a recent post, when paddling a long day 
with my Greenland style paddle, my muscles get sore but my joints 
don't.  The lower efficiency means I do more work with less 
accumulated stress.

The basic concept in generating paddling forces efficiently is to 
move a lot of water at a low velocity.  Greenland paddles don't do 
that and are therefore not as efficient as short, fat Euro paddles.

Mike

***************************************************************************
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/
***************************************************************************
From: Peter Chopelas <pac_at_premier1.net>
subject: Re: [Paddlewise] High Aspect Ratio Paddles
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 16:59:53 -0700
Peter T. wrote:

> Why don't all long distance paddlers use them, particularly if they are
> nearly twice as efficient?

I think mostly ignorance.  As I stated, fluid mechanics is a very complex
issue and not intuitive at all, so it is easy to fall victim to the
marketing of equally ignorant paddle makers, many who have built reputations
making perfectly fine racing or WW paddles (but unsuited to long distance
seakayaking).  Their experience or knowledge does not translate to the
different conditions.  Consider how different a sail plane wing is from a
fighter wing, different conditions, very different design.  Most who
PROPERLY learn how to use a high AR native paddle, usually stay with it.
But they do feel VERY different, and they are used differently (just like a
sail plane vs. a fighter aircraft), so many are not comfortable with a
native blade when they try it, and do not want to make the transition.  When
I first saw a Greenland paddle up close, my reaction was "how can you
generate any trust with a skinny stick like that?!".  It was years latter
that I read a detailed article about a guy who transitioned and found not
only less effort and less stress on his body, but also he was cruising at
the SAME SPEED with less effort.  If forced me to think through the stroke
mechanics, and what was actually happening at the blade.  It was quite a
revelation since it was not obvious even to me, who has many miles in canoes
since a child, and now more than a few in kayaks as an adult, and have spent
a good part of my professional career doing computational fluid mechanics.

Should the same paddler, paddling over the same
> distance in comparable conditions, expend nearly half as much energy with
a
> high aspect ratio paddle as with a low aspect ratio paddle? If so, this is
> such a dramatic difference that high AR paddles should take over for most
> toreros. But, they don't.

Again, ignorance, and fear too.  If "looks" odd to most who see what the WW
and racers are doing, and since it also feels very different in the hands,
most will not given a fair comparison or use the proper criteria in
measuring the value of the paddle.  Most consumers are greatly influenced by
the store sales clerk too.  Market acceptance is a very serious concern, no
matter how good your product is, if no one will buy it because it "looks
funny", you will go broke.  I know this from personal experience in more
than one industry.

> Putting it the other way, if a fit paddler was able to input greater
energy
> into paddling with a high AR paddle, shouldn't he or she go faster and
last
> longer than with a low AR paddle?

you are confusing terms.  NOT faster, or input of greater energy-- you will
expend LESS energy over the SAME distance, at the SAME speed, with the
higher aspect ratio of otherwise two identical paddles.  Or you could go
further with a given expenditure of energy, at the same speed (you might
notice this if you come to the point of being out of energy before it gets
dark).  So over the same distance you would have a greater reserve of energy
at the end of the day.  This is hard to measure in a recreational paddle
since most days vary any way.  And since almost no paddles are the same in
all ways except AR, you would have to specially make them this way to
compare them.

> Does anyone have experience of longer distance races where paddlers use
both
> high AR and low AR paddles? Who wins, and who is in best shape at the
finish
> line? If a race is not the best practical test, what is the speed cut-off
> point where a high AR paddle comes in? The equations seem to suggest that
> high AR paddles are more efficient at any speed, assuming an equal blade
> area.

Again you are confusing what I am saying (go back and reread my post).  Even
a long distance racer is trying to optimize distance over time (i.e.
absolute speed).  You need to measure energy out put (with perhaps an oxygen
uptake mask that measures total volume of air consumed), over a given
distance, AT THE SAME SPEED (and yes, any speed, as long as you are
comparing the same speed).  When you go faster, the hull drag goes up, you
must expend more energy to get there in less time, any type of race is not a
valid comparison.  Even different paddlers will expend energy in different
amounts, so you have to measure heart rates, or air consumption, with the
same paddler, with the same hull, at the same speed, with different paddles
of the same shape, area and weight, with different ARs.

I am willing to volunteer to assist with running such comparison tests of as
many paddles we can put together for a magazine article or equipment review
for anyone that wishes to put together such a comparison.  How about it
Matt?  Anyone at SK mag on the list?

> Am I paddling up the wrong creek with these questions?

Yes you are, as noted about.  IOW, these are the wrong questions, so how can
you expect answers that make sense if you, like most people, do not even
know what the right questions are?  Not your fault, it is just the general
lack of understanding of such complex issues as fluid mechanics.  Consider
that humans have been attempting to build flying machines since the dawn of
recorded history, perhaps 3000 years or more, yet it was only about 100
years ago that enough was understood to make the first controlled flight,
(and only some 40 years later fly faster than the speed of sound).  So the
technology required was not obvious, and not intuitive.  As an aside, it is
interesting to note that the design of the kayak has changed little in
perhaps 2000 or more years (except for the materials), and it is still a
pretty good design in general for moving long distances in changing and
often rough conditions over water by muscle power.  A remarkable
accomplishment.  And why I think often native designs, like the paddles, are
superior.

Peter C.

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:34 PDT