Sadly
I have now forgotten everything I learned at the beginning of this thread.
Tandem Axle, Post contrasted
Comparing the tandem Axle and Post maneuvers gives insight into the benefits of carving.
In the Axle, described above, the Bow, heels Onside, planting a Duffek and the stern powers the hull around that plant with successive, sweeping forwards. [Interpretive folk will extend the bow’s torso across the rail to the point the Duffek morphs into a Reverse Sweeping Low Brace, but the stern still drives the boat through the desired degree of rotation.]
The Tandem Post has the Bow heeling Offside, away from her Duffek; reaching across the high rail presents a more vertical paddleshaft and a yields more drawing force, but it also carves the bow into the turn.
At Marc’s practical level the stern still pounds the bottom around that plant, but at the Interpretive level, where initiation, boat heel and timing are improved, th stern can slice his unloaded paddle through a 180 dg turn or even take the thing out of the water!
The difference is the bow deflection engaged with the outside heel. The bow enters the turn more aggressively, the stern skids sooner and more aggressively, and, if entered with enough momentum and subtle initiation, the canoe will skid through a 180 dg turn without further power application. Cool!
See sternsmen?
You may be working too hard. Using FS principles tandemites are a team!
Not one person the engine and the other ballast.
Actually,
– Last Updated: Jan-15-11 11:38 AM EST –
The division of labor is pretty specific in FS Tandem teams. The leading stem induced the offset from former course, the trailing stem powers/encourages the skid. For Forward and Forward Crossing maneuvers the Bow initiates the yaw couple, the Stern powers the boat when needed.
One can argue the leading stem paddler, usually the bow, also selects heel direction, but there had best be agreement on that with the trailing stem paddler or the team changes to a new sport; swimming.
That all flips during Reverse and Cross Reverse Maneuvers; the Stern is then the leading stem and pulls the stern off course, the Bow now provides the power to complete the skidded turn.
That division of labor is what gives Tandem FS it's glitter. Solo paddlers need provide power, induce heel, offset and conclude the maneuver by themselves while keeping their kesters in the boat. Naturally, most functions are somewhat compromised by needing to accomplish the others.
Tandem paddlers can initiate with dedicated, focused precision and power because the team mate keeps the hull moving. One paddler can extend torso well across the rail because the other is counterbalancing.
my remark was directed at the
average tandem paddling team who might benefit from FS lessons.
I’ve been doing tandem FS for some years too. I just want to KISS. I think the more jargon, the more people will go to Band B.
Now time to load the boats…
First the unveiling and digging out of the boat shed.
I really wish I had one of these today.
(Drift warning)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPg1ZMiC9pA
In whitewater tandem maneuvers
– Last Updated: Jan-15-11 11:42 AM EST –
sometimes the stern leads the maneuver, and sometimes the bow.
Here is a quote from "Canoeing: The Essential Skills and Safety" by Andrew Westwood (not a bad little book, in my estimation) in which he is describing tandem turning maneuvers:
"The actual turn begins with a stern initiation stroke that sets the canoe onto an arcing path. Following this is a bow control stroke to fine-tune the arc. Finally, all maneuvers are completed with more forward strokes to reestablish your forward momentum."
In my experience, this is how most tandem whitewater teams execute the majority of their maneuvers, even when the bow paddler is very experienced.
On the other hand, the bow paddler invariably has a better vantage point from which to see unexpected, last-second obstacles, like barely submerged rocks, or appreciate the precise optimal path over a drop or through a chute. A good tandem whitewater bow paddler will initiate a turn away from the obstacle, or toward the desired line without prior communication, and a good stern paddler will automatically apply the complementary stroke without demur or debate.
Of course, things are a bit different in whitewater, because most maneuvers involve crossing a line of current differential that affects to turn the boat.
I know the Impulse
Bought one for my wife years ago and took my first trip (swim) down the Ocoee in it. No it has no edge at all. Ed (“nightswimmer”) has it now.
The Ocoee is definitely “edgy”. Maybe a bit less so than the Viper 12. It is certainly a revered boat.
Linking
Linked moves are what creates the artistic beauty of FS exhibitions. Linked moves also underlie all sophisticated technical paddling around obstacles and in shifting currents and whitewater.
But to stay with flatwater and smoothwater FS, I really think the FS discipline needs some sort of manual of practical linkages: two move links, three move links, and beyond. On-side moves to on-side moves. On-side moves to off-side moves. I’ve never seen such a descriptive analysis of linking in writing.
It would be interesting to know the link series of championship routines, as well as practical linkages for obstacle and river paddling.
In addition to just listing linkages, there are probably underlying principles of canoe physics that can be articulated as to why and when linkages will work. That is, in terms of boat vector, paddle placement, hull heel and momentum, why and when are two moves linkable? One principle that seems relevant is when the conclusion of one move naturally sets up the initiation of a second move.
For me, it would take too much time to intuit or experiment with all the possibilities. I’d rather have a written manual to practice from. I’m not sure this thread is the best vehicle, but it could be a start.
Knee steering in current
In my opinion, much of the knee steering around curves in current due to differential current pressures on the bow and stern.
As you enter a turn with a heel, even a very slight yaw couple is greatly accentuated by the fact that the bow is in the slower water of the turn while the stern is still being carried in the original direction by the straight current above the turn. The net effect can indeed be a strong (if sliding) turn.
Some boats are naturally better at this than others. My Wildfire excels; it seems to turn simply by thought pressure.
Interesting
Nice post.
Though not strictly linkage, I’d suggest that the most neglected skill in this thread is actually the recovery to the paddling position: getting the 180 degree / 270 degree manouvres in is one thing… but to recover seamlessly and without boat bobble to one’s forward/reverse paddling position is another art entirely!
Mentioned as I suspect that’s pretty much of a pre-requisite to good linkage!
Continuous momentum links, or not
One possible way to categorize linked moves would be to divide them into:
– moves that can be linked using the momentum from the initial move, versus
– moves that require intermediary propulsive paddle strokes to add new momentum.
I’ll give more thought to this later
but to address Glenn’s last point; most 180deg. or better maneuvers pretty much stall out by the time they’re concluded. As such at least a single propulsion stroke is required before beginning another maneuver. Good programs usually have limited propulsion strokes between maneuvers. I generally try to limit to 2 as an average. Occasionally one is possible. If I need to use three or more as the music may dictate, I had better be generating momentum for something dramatic.
Elaine Mravetz, in her most recent solo piece has a prolonged forward stroke sequence. She elegantly breaks it up by doing alternate forwards and x forwards. It’s the only time I’ve ever seen that done and it’s quite effective.
In the next day or so I’ll think more about linkage sequences. In the meantime, think about utilizing momentum, and what the conclusion of a maneuver has you set up for.
Marc Ornstein
Glenn, good point about linkages
being written down for a FS manual. In classes, the instructors always offer their favorite linkages based on efficiency, paddle placements, etc. I have picked up good ideas that way, but I also pick up a lot from doing flash paddling with music and a notebook. Writting down what works and what “needs work” while doing three move sequences.
I think it would be a great starting point. But the more I think about it, the more daunting the project would be. I can come up with great linkages for traveling in a straight line, but they don’t always work when I am trying to change direction. I am having a heck of a time right now thinking through linkages now that I am rotating past on 180 on some of my maneuvers. Likewise, my body doesn’t move into the same positions as say Molly or Elaine, so the physical transitions are sometimes pretty comical.
I like the idea though.
There is no substitute for
learning from experience. Once you know the basic maneuvers I really think it best to put them together on the water. One of the things that has held FS back is the overwhelming terminology. It’s useful for learning the basics, but after that it becomes a “feel” thing. Guess I’m just a believer in the Socratic method. What you discover for yourself is what you remember best.
An excercise we have used for years is to challenge students to keep their boat moving CONTINUOSLY with what they have learned for 2,3, or 4 minutes. The advice I generally give is to feel what your boat is doing and keep it moving in the same direction as that avoids stalls. Example: if you are skidding the stern, blend your stroke into a reverse maneuver so the stern keeps moving but becomes the leading edge. Simplest way to demo is to do a Christie and at the conclusion of the bow draw slice backward to begin a reverse stroke or sweep…that keeps the stern moving. It’s called a reversal…going from forward to reverse travel in a smooth, easy manner.
Linkages
We have morphed quite a ways from realistic or practical FreeStyle when chatting about linkages, and probably re-focused the discussion on fewer and fewer interested paddlers.
That said, kinda sadly, there are several linkages mentioned in the FS Instruction Manual; Christie to Reverse Christie, Cross Wedge to Reverse Wedge, Cross Wedge to Wedge and Reverse Post to Reverse Christie and Axle.
One item to look for is [where does the paddle blade end up at a maneuver’s end?] and what can be initiated from that position. Wedges are great to link from because the blade is always at an end of the boat. example, let the hull stall with a Cross Wedge, initiate reverse headway with a compound Cross back Stroke and stick a Reverse Cross Wedge after that single back stroke.
[What is the boat heel?] It generally looks better not to cross heel the hull. The above example maintains boat heel. Another consideration is what successive maneuver gives a successive maneuver the advantages of carving stems.
Another consideration is Momentum; [What direction is the hull moving in?] What maneuver could continue that direction? Example, concluding a Cross Wedge makes a successive Post easy, particularly if the Wedge doesn’t stall the hull. 180 dg Wedges can maintain momentum, 270 dg ones stall the boat.
And, stalling the boat isn’t always bad, especially if one wants to reverse direction.
Charlie, I hope we
will not lose the interest of too many folks as most are not and will not be competitive interpretive paddlers. Most will just enjoy playing around with their boat and will be happy with less than 180 turns just as long as the technique helps them go where they want to with a certain degree of style, control, and-most importantly-fun.
I have always thought that one of the great accomplishments of FS is that it has broadened the perception of the canoe from primarily a vehicle of travel, to include the idea that it can also be a vehicle for nondestinational play.
Practical Linkage
Tom Foster tried like heck to get us to link moves on whitewater. Most of us were struggling with the basic moves so linking was a hurdle we barely aproached.
Curiously… or maybe I should say obviously, after taking some classes at AFS, I find myself linking whitewater moves almost effortlesly and then doing the same in quietwater.
One thing about Practical Freestyle that makes linking easier is that you rarely want a 180 degree turn. If anything you more often want a 90 degree or less to line you up, then you want to link for an S turn or power up with forward strokes.
I do have to admit to a weakness for 180’s to reverse strokes and then 180 again to forward. But that’s just showing off as much as anything.
Personaly I think that a compendium of linkages would be of little practical value. There are too many variables of boat and load and current and wind that need to be adjusted for.
Better I think to learn the moves and formal linkages, either Freestyle or Slalom, then take them out and play with them. Learn what works for you.
Exhibition vs. practical linkages
Both are important for learning, practicing and utilizing FS flow paddling.
Exhibition link sequences are important even for those of us who have no intention of exhibiting because they are good practice routines for boat control. While I agree that everyone should learn upon the water and not from text, and that personal experimentation is important, there is great value in having pedagogical materials and instruction. The FS discipline shouldn’t say “invent your own link sequences” any more than it says “invent your own way to turn a boat”. Increasingly sophisticated maneuvers in any sport of field of endeavor should be documented and taught in order to promote continuted progress. Darwin. Hegel. Rising road theology.
(I didn’t know there was such a thing as the FS Instruction Manual and have never seen it.)
On the practical level linkages are very important. I dare say I could paddle an entire twisty creek without ever lifting my paddle from the water. The entire river run becomes one continuous linkage–much of which, of course, being neutral forward slices and sliced paddle repositioning.
In the practical flatwater setting one doesn’t usually have any need to make a 180 degree turn, and hence stalling isn’t really an issue. In moving water the current will provide continuous momentum and prevent stalling.
On the practical paddling level, I don’t believe there is a distinction between “freesyle” moves and basic Algonquin canoe moves (hence I sometimes criticize the use of this terminology). Some simple practical sequences I like are:
– Post or axle turn into a sideslip. Useful when coming around a bend in current and being confronted with a stump or rock. Also useful when weaving among trees and overhanging branches in the Sparkleberry Swamp.
– Alternating forward and cross forward strokes, which is a basic way of accelerating in whitewater or any water.
– Cross axle around a bend, maybe with a cross draw component to avoid a branch, blending into a series of cross forwards.
– Cross draw, over bow, to bow sweep. Enhances and prolongs a turn.
– Forward stroke, palm roll sliced into a sideslip, followed by sculling draws or sequential draws to enhance and prolong the sideslipping.
Flatwater FS linkages in another vein…
Much has been discussed about linkages that occur based on the location of the paddle at the conclusion of a manuever and/or the direction that a stem is continuing in the path of travel. My personal preference is to consider and utilize this information when deciding what manuever to subsequently accomplish. It should be noted, however, that there are a number master FS technique paddlers who prefer to approach things from the opposite viewpoint…i.e. halt forward momentum completely, go in reverse from an opposing heel postion, etc. The object here being to demonstrate absolute mastery of canoe paddling from ANY position and manuever conclusion. It illustrates both power and control. Although I personally prefer fluidity, seamlessness, and motion continuity in FS routines, I can also appreciate routines that contradict that philosophy. Both approaches require an intimate and practiced body of knowledge to achieve a successful end result.
An interesting distinction
I’ve never before encountered the philosophical divide between the Flow Masters and the Halt Masters. Hence I’m glad I brought up this sub-topic.
The Halt Masters seem to be denying there is a natural flow in the universe, a functional and aesthetic flow intrinsic to the Canoe God. They protest this, rail against it (literally), and try to prove man’s free will to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. The most famous tandem team to adopt this philosophy was, of course, Mike and Eve.
I think this philosophical, if not theological, distinction relates to the divide between exhibition and practical FS. I really doubt that high marks would be given to figure skating exhibitions or to gymnastic floor exercise exhibitions that contradict natural flow patterns. Oh, an occasional stop-jump move adds punctuational spice. But an entire routine consisting of unflowing singularity moves would probably be deemed heretical if not downright sinful in those sports.
However, in the theater of secular practicality, we cannot assume that naturally flowing moves will be available. For the Canoe God has also created rocks, holes, logs, branches, stumps, gators, falls, currents, waves, wind, and Cheryl Tiegs. These things often require quick stops, momentum reversals, wrong-way heels, and other boat control contortions.
Hence we need Halt Mastery linkages as well as Flow Mastery linkages. And we should not only write about these graceful canoe sacraments, but film and narrate them.