I use a 280cm paddle. It’s a Bending Branches Navigator. The carbon shaft makes a huge difference to my old body. It’s a 105 sq inches of blade surface but paddles so easy and efficiently. When I started I was told that the two things not to skimp on is a paddle and pfd. That has served me well. I paddle a Mad River Explorer 16 canoe that i converted to a solo.
I generally run a 613 sq/cm paddle, it’s my goto I can paddle it out of shape, or in shape. I also have my 650 sq/cm paddle. It’s also my go to for down river running, or when my upper body is in shape and I have the strength to properly pull a larger blade area at my preferred cadence.
since for down river running the larger blade area allows me to make quicker course corrections brake harder and whatnot. that and the fact that you are not expending energy like you would be doing in a race or on flatwater or in surf. you speed bleed is much less down stream than anywhere else.
so it really depends on the need. If I’m racing I’ll take the 613 sq/cm paddle as it’s the closest I have to my optimal blade surface area for my Age, Cardio conditioning and Strength. If I’m rivver running I’m taking my 650 sqcm blade as it’s a workhorse and I’m pretty sure I can’t break it. and for what it demands it only demands that in short bursts.
and if I’m screwing about or fishing (same thing.) I take the larger since the blades are made I’m sure of magic as the bounce off rocks have been run over and are still 100%
As a single blade kinda guy, it probably doesn’t apply to your question, but I reach for my big, Maine guide paddle when stern paddling a large canoe with grandkids and/or other inexperienced paddlers. Gives me a little extra when dealing with the rest of the crews’ ineffective strokes.
“In the end, smaller weighs less and catches less wind, so it’s desirable to the point where you can’t reasonably overcome its limitations”
I like that. Think I’ll steal it and pretend that I said it instead of you.
2 Likes
Just for your FYI 630 sq/cm is I think my Ideal blade area, and should I someone have a CF one at about 26 Oz or less we’d be having that and only that.
I reach for a full size blade with some offset for ww or for anything “textured” where I might need a brace. This is a because I lack technique using a greenland paddle and feel more confident using something the resembles a standard ww kayak paddle. It is a mental trust thingy, muscle memory with bracing.
For rec boating I’ve fooled with the greenland a wee bit, still getting the hang of it.
I like a longer canoe paddle for the stern or soloing and will only use a bent shaft or shorter paddle in the bow.
For ww c1ing I liked short shafted paddles with normal sized blades, a t grip, and I used a paddle blade in which the whole blade was encased in dynel. This was so I could throw it up on the rocks when I got out the the boat, which I did at every major rapid to video rafts . A buddy made my custom paddles and once he made a short c1 paddle that was fine to paddle with but rolling became harder with it so it didn’t get used as much.
My canoe paddles double as rafting paddles and they are a bit short for that but get used anyway. My kayak paddles also get used as ducky (IK) paddles and they are a bit short as well. Life is a compromise…and then there is the cadence x leandel- adjustable offset and length, nice and light. My go to paddle until I break it!
I’ve also noticed the lack of blades in this size range. Seems like there might be a market niche for it.
Here are most of the paddles I use. I have 2 good Euro type paddles and several Aleut and Greenland style paddles. All of these were overlaid on a piece of paper and traced to give comparative sizes.
I find I do better in calmer waters with the Euros and the higher the waves get, the better I like the Aleut and Greenland types. The euros also do best for me in shallow water because of the length of the blades on the GL and Alaskan types.
OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA by Steve Zihn, on Flickr
To clarify, the red Euro tracing is of the Warner Kalliste and the blue tracing is of the Aqua Bound Eagle Ray. I don’t think there is more then 1 Sq inch of difference between the 2.
Shallow rocky rivers.
@skeggy_boi, as with a motor vehicle, think of your muscles as the engine, your torso and arms are drive train and the blades are like tires. You have to test different paddles to best managed your power by adapting to your physical stature, body dimensions, and conditioning. Then you have to figure out whether you want speed, power, endurance, comfort or a design that enhances control.
Since no two paddlers have the same power output or physical ability to leverage a specific paddle length or blade, you have to find that balance yourself.
Of course a paddle is a paddle. The stategy is to get the best purchase that locks the blade in the water while levering the boat forward. When you want instant acceleration and power for a sprint race or to surf wave, you might prefer large blades which uses limited stores of glycogen anerobically. When you are traveling long distances, a smaller blade with a higher cadence keeps the kayak on glide and allows you to remain within a comfortable anerobic zone for more efficient energy management.
However, many paddlers do use narrow width Greenland paddles because of the better control; they compensate for lack of blade area by developing power through higher cadence, preferring greater control over the speed advantage of larger blades. Although a narrow blade will slip more readily under load, the solution is to build power gradually - as the boat speed increases, less effort is needed to propel the boat. Consequently, it will take longer to get up to speed, but the payoff is greater energy management and less stress on muscles and joints.
I suspect that many paddlers use the same technique for every paddle. A low angle or high angle paddle can be used interchangeably for satisfactory results, because the blade are dimentionally sjjimilar and only vary in length/width by around an inch. Although square inch blade area is typically larger for high angle paddling, you can find high angle paddles with smaller area blades than low angle paddles; the reverse is also true. The critical dimension is length, in that an appropriate length for high angle is too stubby for effective low angle, as a long low angle paddle puts the off side blade too high in the air for an efficient transition between the exit and the next power phase. A longer low angle paddle gives an advantage, as long as the paddler can control and handle the leverage of the combined paddle length/square inch area or the blades.
Based on my experimentation, I prefer a low angle technique, using the longest paddle that I can swing at a higher cadence. The longer the paddle, the longer the blades remain in the power arc, because the longer length doesn’t interfere with power transition from exit to catch.
The only way to tell which is most effective for YOU is to try different paddles and figure out how to adapt your power output to that paddle. However, you need to decide whether you prefer to sprint or tour of surf. If your goal is piddle around on the pond, any old paddle will do, as will any old stroke.
1 Like
I actually recently went on a 300-mile trip and ended up using mostly paddle C from above (the largest one I have). I used Paddle B (which I brought as a spare) the first day or two to get warmed up and another time near the end when I was tired. I seem to prefer a higher cadence in general but found the greater control with Paddle C worth the slightly increased weight and slightly slower cadence. I still am using all paddles with as high-angle a technique as possible, a short length, and a relatively fast cadence for my ability. The larger paddle blade area is less inconvenient as I get more fit. I do find I have to be more particular with technique since I’ll get flutter much more easily with this one than any other paddle I’ve used, but I don’t mind the reminder to stay proper.
I haven’t seen a need for an even bigger paddle yet for me personally, although I could see how people go for bigger in “conditions”. I wouldn’t mind something in-between (like something 630-ish as Craig mentioned above) but Paddle C is my overall preference at this point, which I actually didn’t expect.
I’d love to know which paddles A, B and C are. Brand and models.
Ha! I was trying to leave that out to keep the conversation conceptual. I feel like people get too caught up on gear. I feel you, though.
Paddle A: Werner Shuna, 215cm length/613cm blade area
Paddle B: Lendal Cadence, 205-210cm length/580cm blade area
Paddle C: Braca-Sport Hurricane 660 100, 206-216cm length/660cm blade area
I’m slightly skeptical that all manufacturers calculate blade area the same way but whatever.
I like the Shuna a lot but I came to find that I hate the length. I feel like I could go shorter than 205 on the Lendal, oddly—probably because the blades are shorter—although making it a little longer is OK too for a little extra oomph. Anything past 208 feels a bit superfluous on the Braca. I ordered it at 206 minimum length because I calculated that to be my sweet spot and I wanted to be able to use it without futzing with the length setting. I nailed it—I love it at 206! The Brača is my default now.
I do expect that I’ll be able to handle longer paddles as I get more buff in the future and I do like extra length in waves to catch the troughs more easily. Shorter paddles just feel right to me, though—no wasted motion.
I’m 6’1" and about 152 pounds (185cm/69kg); I mostly paddle a QCC 700 in inland lakes and rivers.
I found a unicorn!
It’s about 630 Cm2 blade area with a 230 cm shaft. (I didn’t buy it.) and am now kicking myself in the ass for not doing.
was a custom made paddle, carbon shaft with beautiful wood blades. It surprisingly weighed the same as the aquabound whiskey (full carbon) but had an amazing swing weight.
I didn’t buy it, because it was a work of art. and I’m an idiot with paddles and would have dinged it up in no time. and I couldn’t see doing that.
but I still wish I bought it even if just to look at it.
1 Like
Unicorns need a home.
I’ve been thinking of buying a spare set of Celtic blades and going at them with a dremel.
I think when I go back to pick up my Tsunami 175 Pro, If I can afford it I’m going to pick up that paddle if it’s still there, even if it’s just to look at it. 
They also have two beautiful low angle ones.
Is that 175 Tsunami PRO the boat you considered driving with your wife to try out, but didn’t actually follow through? We discussed the merits of the 170 Tempest, the rotomolded 175 Tsunami, and the fiberglass 180 Tsunami PRO, in different conditions.
The 175 Tsunami PRO specs appear to be similar to the rotomolded version except for the weight, with the the fiberglass version being 61 lbs vs. 69 lbs for the rotomolded version. The PRO also has rigid molded bulkheads vs. the foam type that ultimately leak.
What is the main feature that you feel the PRO version offers?
@Jyak I did buy the 175 Tsunami Pro, The pro is very similar to the Rotomolded boat save for lighter, and the angles are sharper.
So where the 175 Poly bow comes to a more rounded point the rounded point of the Layup is a bit sharper and less rounded (smaller radius at the nose.) Same goes for the hard chines, they are sharper on the pro model.
So all in all it should have better glide, than the poly boat and maybe slightly faster. Haven’t gotten the 175 Pro back yet Blue mountain is still effecting a crack repair on the deck. From what I’ve seen paddling the Tempest 180 Pro, vs 175Tsunami and 170 Tempest, the hull in the layups is slightly different adding to paddling efficiency and speed.
EG: the 175 Tsunami vs. the 170 Tempest based on hull speed the difference in the two is 0.1 mph which was borne out by my real world testing. 5.8 Mph Tsunami vs. 5.7 Tempest.
so the 175 Tsunami vs the 180 tempest Pro on paper the hull speed difference should be and is 0.1 mph however in real world testing in identical conditions it turned out was .4 mph faster due to the more efficient lines of the Pro model. 5.8 mph Tsunami vs. 6.2 mph tempest.
now as I said before all my tests occur in optimal conditions so as to normalize what the boat is capable of without environmental interference.
in real world I found the hard Chines of the Tsunami Vs the Soft chine of the Tempest afford the Tsunami less of a speed loss when conditions deteriorate I’ve measured about a 0.4-0.5 mph drop on the Tsunami’s top speed whereas the Tempest Pro gets close to a 1 Mph loss in the same conditions. so as things get worse the Tsunami will eventually become the faster boat. this happens especially in quartering to perpendicular windblown waves. Head on the Sail that my body presents doesn’t seem to be enough for the wind alone to make a difference speed wise nor do the waves. With the wind both boats gain the same speed from their surfing ability.
so at about 1 ft (2’ delta between peak and valley.) the Tsunami then becomes the faster boat.
Ok so having said the and all the mechanics of that if the speed improvement of 0.3 Mph over what should only be a 0.1 mph delta based on length is due to the fact that they can get sharper angles in the Layups, the 175 Tsunmai Pro should see a 0.3 mph speed increase over the Rotomolded 175 Tsunami. 5.8 Mph Tsunami, Vs 6.1 Mph Tsunami Pro which would align with their .1 mph Hull speed delta based on their half foot difference.
this then puts it in the Tsunami 6+ mph flat-water category that the Tempest is in. and with the fact that I already established that the hard chines lose less speed than soft chines in Chop makes it the faster all around boat for degraded conditions.
Granted this is all theoretical until I get a chance to Dyno the pro and not Pro Side by side.
Hopefully John, this answers your question sufficiently.
TL;DR - the pro models seem to be about 0.4 Mph faster than the non-Pro models.