Long distance to average that speed. I think they have the best complete builds of any athlete.
Swimmers are up there also.
I think these guys are bigger but not to big. The other video I posted showed the breakdown of the paddlers body with all the technical testing.
So that compares to three weeks on a bicycle?
Fastest is kind of relative. Fastest for me is something completely different from fastest for an experienced competitive racer. I used to paddle a lot, and felt I was fairly comfortable in boats that other’s had described as tippy. But then years latter, I tried paddling an unlimited class race boat. It was not fast for me, it was exhausting just staying upright. I am sure with practice, I could probably become semi-comfortable in it - but reading on race forums, even some serious racers will occasionally trade some speed for stability on longer races. Second, the motor matters. I have had long thin boats I was comfortable in, but found the hull drag at their cruising speed to wear me out much quicker than my less extreme boats. That said, I don’t know what distance slow and steady would have beat fast and exhausted.
The longer thin hulls you owned where you felt drag at lower cruising speed were? Thanks.
Not challenging that they’re powerful athletes. Still disagree thst a 1000m race compares to pedaling across a country and climbing mountain with some as high as 9,000 ft above sea level for 3 weeks.
They’re much more developed than a cyclists. 5he testing shows it.
If the test shows it . . .
Post the data.
It was not necessarily at a lower speed, but I guess I need to get into more hydrodynamics than is easy for me to explain. Hull speed is directly related to waterline. The longer the waterline, the faster the bow wake. As you approach the speed of the bow wake, it becomes more compressed and vertical. Power boats can exceed the speed of the bow wake and plain - kayaks generally can not-you are just trying to paddle over a wall that gets taller as you approach it. Meanwhile you have drag from wetted area, and width. Wetted area can in some ways be decreased by having a more rounded hull profile - but this also decreases stability. My surf ski was 20’ with low rocker, but not terribly rounded (it was more recreational than competitive) . I don’t know if at a given amount of effort it was faster or slower, I just know that when I paddled at a comfortable speed in it, it simply felt like more drag than when I paddled at a comfortable speed in my sea kayak. I could easily paddle it faster than my regular sea kayak - but I kind of felt over 10-20 miles there would be a trade off due to increased fatigue. My sea kayak at that time was only 14’. Since then I have owned 16’ (high rocker) and 18’ (low rocker) sea kayaks - both of which I have not felt were as draggy as that 20’ surf ski (abet that might be due to hull shape). Anyway, that surf ski just really wanted a better motor than me. A second issue may have been the simple fact that I am more comfortable in a sea kayak than a surf ski (I like the way I can connect to a sea kayak).
All ready have in a thread somewhere here. It was on YouTube about Olympic rowers and testing the capacity of their muscles and lungs.
Sea kayaks and ski were that you paddle?
I don’t find my Current Designs Extremes or Expedition @ 18’-10" x 21" vs. my CD Solstice @ 17’-10" x 24" requiring more power at any speed. They both accelerate fast and cruise with less effort than the Solstice. The Expedition has the rounder bottom than the other two and is the fastest.
The Solstice, being 10-15% wider, and only about 6% shorter, probably has a similar if not greater wetted surface compared to the longer boats. My 10’ whitewater kayak is definitely easier to accelerate from 0 to 2 mph than my QCC 700.
I too am curious about Mousehunter’s surfski experience. Was it a particularly wide ski? Did it feel more fatiguing because it naturally made him want to keep a faster pace?
Couldn’t tell you I was never in a ten foot hull.