Combining two thoughts? Yes, that’s the point.
Speed (distance/time) and efficiency (energy output/energy input) are two entirely different things, a fact that can get muddled in these discussions. The relative importance of one vs the other depends entirely on the goal of the paddler, though I’d venture that most of us strive for a balance between the two. The comparison with gasoline as the power source in automobile engine is entirely consistent with the notion of finding an optimum balance between speed and efficiency. Gravity as a power source in bobsledding is another example; there are no doubt many others.
Regardless, the laws of physics (yes, they are found in books) dictate that a paddle stroke parallel and close to the keel line will generate less lateral force versus one that isn’t. If the goal is to efficiently move the boat forward in a straight line, lateral force isn’t helpful because it takes energy to create and to correct. However, in no way does that mean one style is better than another. Most of us are looking for an optimum blend of speed and efficiency, and depending on the circumstances, having to compensate for some lateral force may be a perfectly reasonable tradeoff.
Holding two thoughts seems to be problematic these days. And let’s face it, physics works best on the chalkboard with limited variables.
I’ve found that time in the boat is the best efficiency builder. Although I’m 5’11”, I have the arms and legs of someone 6’2”. I’ve never been a high cadence person whether cycling or paddling. It tires me quickly even though eggheads will lay out the physics of why a higher cadence might be more efficient. My GL stick is longer than standard formulas say I should use, yet on expedition, it is unbeatable (for me!) for 20 mile days without tiring.
But then I’m remembering a physics prof who, one day in class, wrote out the proof for why honey bees shouldn’t be able to fly. Guess bees don’t read those books.
I can demonstrate that low angle is more aerobic, more efficient, more suited for distance paddling, and faster. However, the high angle applies more power immediately, at the expense of going anerobic. Many of the arguments presented here are matters of blind faith. I still have no idea what size paddle you use, the cadence, a plot of your arrow straight tracks from folliwing close to the hull, and wherher you can maintain the anerobic power to retain the speed that you generate over a 5 mile course. Will you be able to maintain the same level of output after 8 hours. There are two members who I accept for face value. Craig is one, because he shared his log and I paddled with him. I have no doubt about his stats or his impeccable high angle technique. Most other claims I view as suspect. If you’re comfortable with your technique you should be proud, but when you question mine, I expect you to back up the critique with facts.
Agreement #1 - The number of variables doesn’t change the physics, but fewer variable sure helps with understanding.
Agreement #2 - I also have relatively long arms and find that a lower cadence works better for me. I think it’s more efficient but I can’t measure energy in and energy out so it’s a rather subjective judgment.
Agreement #3 - No doubt true that bumblebees don’t read physics books, but the more likely explanation is that it was the physics prof (if serious, which is doubtful) who didn’t read them very well.
There is no way to compensate a lower cadence except with larger a square inch blade. Which produces a more efficient transfer of power isn’t apparent at this point because nobody will share data. I do know I was shocked when Craig explained his paddling technique to me, even moreso when he demonstrated, then again when paddling side by side. Somethings are hard to comprehend until witnessed.
Agreed, mostly. Although less lateral motion is created with a close to the keel line stroke, other factors contribute to efficiency too. It seems to me that the main obstacle to a better understanding of paddling efficiency isn’t an unwillingness to share data, but the lack of a practical way to directly measure energy in and energy out while testing different variables.
Without such measures “efficiency” becomes a subjective judgment open to some unknown degree of influence by differences in human physiology, boat and paddle design, paddling environment, etc, etc, etc.
Newton’s Laws aside, I use both high and low angle techniques … almost exclusively lower and slower when endurance is the priority, but mostly higher and faster for my daily early morning (weather permitting) 5 +/- mile loops. Neither is always better, but each is better sometimes.
Also, I’ve gone back through this thread and don’t see where I’ve questioned your technique. What works for you works for you. End of story. My bad if I said (or implied) otherwise.
In 1934 French entomologist August Magnan and his assistant calculated that bee flight was areodynamically impossible, establishing that human engineers and scientists often struggled to explain the complexities of mature. Obviously bees fly but the math said not possible. That was the proof my prof wrote out for the class.
Magnan’s calculations, however, were based on wings that flap up and down. Without high speed photography the entomologist had no way of knowing that bees use a short choppy stroke that rotates and flops over as the wing reverses, in addition to a very fast wing beat frequency. I think it was CalTech researchers that finally figured it out and published the findings in the early 2000s - long after I was out of college.
So perhaps instead of ‘variables’, I should have said ‘assumptions’. Humans assume something is true and build a proof based on that. If the assumption is faulty, then the conclusion is also. Bad data is worse than no data at all.
Truth.
Why? Create a link or post it on YouTube. Any smart phone can do that that’s not over 5-6 years old.
That’s why videos are nice. Even someone on a dock taking a video of approaching, passing, and exit.
I’d rather pull a big blade at 40-50-60 SPM than a small one at 70-80.
It isn’t a reflection on you. I sense a general negativity to low angle paddling that is baseless. When Craig first started posting data about usin the 175 Tsunami in local races, i was intrigued and convinced he was using a similar paddling technique. After sharing intricate details of our trips, I’ve concluded that I have nothing to contribute that could benefit his performance. Our records have no bearing on anyone elses capabilities. I’m sharing info privately with a few people who are younger and more fit, in the hope that they can exceed what I manage to accomplish.
What is so frustrating is how common shoulder injury is with paddlers. I lost count of the posts where members report haviing surgery and aski how long before they can return to kayaking. If left to high angle form, the answer for me was never. Fortunately, I adapted, and to put it in perspective, I would never return to high angle paddling after discussing the nature of my injury and the stresses placed on the shoulder joint. To each his own. The reality is that I’m older, worn out, have less stamina, yet I was able to reach my targeted speed goals from a decade ago, and it’s with a bad flipper.
I documented and presented the details. If it generates no interest, I’m satisfied that I’ve done my “due diligence” in supplying the information as I know it. I’ve yet to be presented with anything that contradicts my statistics or tracks thst demonstrates a better way.
I looked back over logs and confirmed that the basic aerobic techniques I suggest work not only over 8 miles courses but can be sustained for 22 mile trips. If you like what you do, keep doing it, but I have a stack of data that contradicts what I hear. There’s a old adage: what you don’t know won’t hurt you . . .
I’d watch it!
It’s a brand new phone, but I’m old school. I trued posting it and it wouldn’t upload. Besides, the concept has no interest.
Me too
I don’t think there is a direct relationship between blade area and cadence, but there is obviously a direct relationship between paddle length (the leverage ratio) and cadence, and therefore a difference in cadence between high and low angle paddling styles at the same speed.
I did the math on that:
*Ikelos at 107 sq in X 40 spm = 4,280
*Ikelos at 107 sq in X 50 spm = 5,350
*Ikelos at 107 sq in X 60 spm = 6,420
*Kalliste at 99.7 sq in X 72 spm = 7,178
*Kalliste at 99.7 sq in X 80 spm = 7,976
I realize that more repetitions with a smaller blade doesn’t necessarily equal less repetitions with a bigger blade, but the total area does suggest it provides more total paddle resistence. Now, the 80 cadence doesn’t push me into a a ana anerobic state, but if I simply paddle harder to increase my avg speed by .5 mph, I go into the anerobic thing (my goal is to try to keep my actual speed near as possible to a predetermined speed - that’s kind of weird, but I decide how fast I expect to go that day within the first quarter mile, after I sample conditions of the wind, tide, current and waves). The result is those peaks that drop-off “precipitously.” I goobered those words and found out they’re kind of medical terms.
It says one makes food your muscle can use, while the other one does do good things, but it does make you stronger, while the other one helps you breath better and give you a strong heart. I bet a lot of people could be gladvto hear that. I do wonder if paddling thst big paddle harder at 60 times a minute would make you breath harder and get acid in your blood. You can do that. I’d rather paddle so it makes that food your cells can eat.
Then I looked at the abbreviation called ATP. They cslled it “energy currency” whatever that means. I know how you feel. Sometimes when I get a lot of groceries, I get tired of walking back and forth between the car and the house. So I just carry a lot of bags instead of just a couple. Sometimes it gets heavy and I get out of breath, but then I drink a beer and feel a lot better. I can see how just paddling harder could feel better, but I guess I’m mostly lazy mostly. One step at a time X 80. I guess it don’t hurt none to do what you like doing most. That’s what I do.
I have always heard about lactic acid build-up too. Then, just the other day, I read a short piece from the Cleveland Clinic (one of this country’s most reputable medical websites, IMO) that says it’s a myth. Interesting. Will now have to dig into the question further.
No no no.
