NotThePainter, I do agree with that. The Greenland threads show there is room to pursue that journey through hand tools, by using a mix of tools and machines, designing them on a computer program connected to a benchtop CNC, or by making them out of carbon fabric in a mold. In the end, the main differences are cosmetic, repeatability, and efficiency. By repeating the process, the builder can refine a previous model. All the method of construction does is facilitate how easy it is to modify the design to accurately make a new test model quicker.
Since I began examining the Greenland Paddle, the differences in apparent size between a Euro and a Greenland paddle was intriguing. I calculated the size of the Greenland I made and found that it wasn’t that different than my current Euro touring paddle. The gap is even less when considering that I intended to find a paddle with a blade that’s about 5 sq inches smaller.
The investment of $5 in a pine 2x4 and a $16 pint of pure tung oil (on sale), allowed me to experiment first hand. Building a paddle also refined my tool inventory and skill. Win, win, win, win. I can’t express my thanks enough for the initiative, the responses, the advice, and even the questions that stimulated further research and answers.
Since the end of my paddling season, I’ve looked at my logs and recent app that graph trip parameters. I still need to use the paddle, but by looking at notes and trips of different lengths, I’m beginning to believe the Greenland is a very capable touring choice, if not superior to a touring Euro. That’s a big change from being a skeptic.