To find the true top speed of my hull and myself unaided and unhindered. Would I want to see the true speed of my motorcycle with a 30 mph tailwind or into a 30 mph headwind? Would I like to be going down a 10% grade or up a 10% grade?
You apparently discuss true top speed, while I’ve tried to make a point of explaining how to manage average speed whether going into conditions or with them. You have no interest in the topic or can’t seem to understand. I’m either unable to communicate that or you aren’t open to understanding the concept.
If you want to know my top speed, I’ve actually recorded 8.5 mph spikes twice - but it has no significance because it was aided by tide, current, wind and waves. What you didn’t understand was that my average speed over a 16 mile course, going both directions was 4.6 mph. However, you haven’t apparently didn’t read that part. You aren’t the only person on the forum who is preoccupied only by top speed. There isn’t much interest about maintaining average speed. Nothing wrong with that. At least you do understand that conditions make it hard to paddle going against conditions and easier to paddle with conditions. You get that much. It’s a start. I believe I can explain by how much, but that doesn’t interest you so I have no further contribution to the subject.
Great 
OP asked about average speed and his sprint speed. Two different things.
I measure short sprint speeds of my hulls no wind or currents. I have seen 12 mph it means nothing it current and wind.
Average speeds vary due to many factors. Where I paddle it’s 4 to near 5 mph depending on Solstice GT, Extreme, or Expedition CD. Tandem Libra 3.5-4 average.
Raced offshore for years few even knew the correct height of the waves. Five’s were 8’s or 10’s. Same with their speed claim. Don’t want OP to take most people’s claims as facts and get upset about his measurements.
Then I’m way off the topic and am out of here.
1 Like
Again 
Yes you’re correct.
The time I waste posting on topics can be diverted to paddling.
1 Like
@Jayak it’s to benchmark the boat’s possible performance. With no mitigating factors you can determine how much a rudder affect your overall speed paddling straight line or turning. Same goes for Skeg deployment.
I do this to know the potentials for a boat. This gives me an idea of relative performance. from there we can see what the boat does in nominal paddling conditions.
The point though is to assess a boat’s potential you need to do in flat-water to normalize one boat vs another.
Just as an aside, I found that the Tempest 180 didn’t seem to be affected by the skeg or not. I ran it on the same track, skeg vs no skeg same speeds over the same 1 mile track.
1 Like
@Craig_S, I understand that. Topics about speed on the open forum turn into a free-for-all. When I’ve displayed data about paddling half the time into conditions and half the time with, someone wakes up or gets sober and engages in man-splaining about how it depends on wind, tide, current and waves. I just did that in detail, and the topic changes to peak speed, motorcycles and how fast someone was able to go paddling with the current. Then a boast about reaching 21 mph in a displacement hull. For an 18 ft boat, that means a potential speed of 6.6 mph, which requires a 14.4 mph following current. I have better sense to believe that fantasy. For all the critcism about the inaccuracy of the GPS when I quote figures, I’m curious how a GPS detractor compiled such BS.
I’m confident in how I analyze my data. I know how fast I can paddle in a sprint, the maximum speed I can reach riding a wave, my cruising speed over 8.5 miles, 15 miles, 21 mile, 27 miles, and 38 miles. I was told the figures are not believable with my boat. That tells me the capability of the person who challenged me, and it tells me I have nothing in common with the person. The constant disruption of my shared info tells me that person can’t begin to understand what I’m talking about. What bothers me is that it prevents my sharing with anyone who cares, but then there hasn’t been much interest in the topic other than top speed. That doesn’t interest me, because it just depends on tide, current, wind and waves. I once compared two paddles side by side on a lake. That info was challenged as inaccurate (there was no wind, tide, current or waves). I have no more time to waste with constant interruptions from people who were not present. I’ll keep my experiences to myself from this point forward.
Just a side note about use of a GPS to track speed:
Please understand the GPS has no idea what you intend to do next. In other words the screen shots shown of a course are what the GPS recorded at or after the movement was done. NEVER BEFORE IT’S DONE! So any mistakes in the calculation of time over distance (speed) are ALWAYS slower then the real speed. Never faster. To show a faster speed than was actually done the GPS would have to have god-like knowledge of the intended course to show your are farther up your intended course before you are actually there. THAT CAN’T HAPPEN!
I never use a GPS. I owned one and I could never get it to work correctly so I gave up on it and I use a map and a compass (as I have since the 1960s,) but the issues I had trouble with were simply ABOUT the reliability of it functioning at all. Even coming on ---- or recording anything.
So I threw it out, but the idea it could know my every step in advance and give a false reading of my speed that were too fast is not possible. It can’t know in advance where I am going to go!
Simply logic should have led nay-sayers to that conclusion.
While I am not a GPS fan and I no longer own one, and though I have several bad experiences with one, the one sin it never did BECAUSE IT CAN’T DO IT is show me I moved faster then I did. Taken as an average, there is NO WAY John’s calculations over so many trips are grossly off time, -------- and if they are at all inaccurate they would have to show he’s gone slower then he TRULY did, never faster!
1 Like
Steve, I found the most valuable feature of the GPS is how it shows the effect conditions have on paddling progress. Every person I ever paddled with misreads the actual impact when turning a corner and facing different current or wind direction. Even if the person guesses right, there is no way for them to predict by how much. That doesn’t matter to most people, but it does to me, and I share it.
That information is more for navigating and trip planning than anything else. I collect the data for my personal use, and I share it. However, its only of value to those who feel it’ll benefit them. I see countless posts asking about recovery from shoulder damage, overcoming the effects of aging, and questions about what is normal speed in a specific boat. That question generates reams of formulas and disagreement about whether longer boats are faster or if they suffer from more wetted surface area. The common suggestion is about how to paddle harder - pushing, pulling, stomping on pegs, screaming . . . Insert by your toes, closer to the boat, reach further, exit here exit there.
One thing became obvious after my shoulder injury. What I was doing caused repetative stress injury. I looked for a way to improve speed - not to simply go faster, but to return to my former level of conditioning, while compensating for an injury that prevents me from using the more powerful high angle technique. The most detestable replies are from those who don’t read the premise of the post (I’ve done that myself). Explaining how I manage to refine the low angle stroke and approach previous speeds is countered with high angle is better because low angle waddles like a duck. The salient point that the expert overlooked is that I can’t do high angle. So rather than explaining the method, the arguement turns into pitter patter about how do you know or speed isn’t important. So I analyze my track and have someone watch from in front and from behind. Still, the all knowing advisor tell me the result of my effort without ever witnessing my performance. Then the advice is to beat the water and waste energy like you’re running a race.
My father often repeated a phrase, “Think like a mule, work like a mule!” Paddling efficiency isn’t everything. It is for me, because I dont have the same power output that I did 15 years ago. Based on my accumulated data, I can make an informed decision to go up the bay, down the bay, or across the bay. Then I can figure out how long it will take. That level of scrutiny isn’t important to most kayakers. Experienced paddlers have already internalized such information. I don’t consider myself to be experienced, just knowledgeable about my personal capability.
Incidentally, how fast a typical sea kayak or touring boat can go is pretty much locked in by length. Steve, when you start climbing the bow wave and fall back, you’re reaching 6.2 mph and stacking up against the maximum speed of the 17 ft kayak, which is 6.4 mph. Going faster requires exponentially more energy than you can furnish, unless you’re riding a wave. Then your speed depends on the wave and your skill at keeping the boat in front of the wave. How long you remain at 6.4 mph depends on your stamina which fails when your muscles can no longer hang in the aneroebic zone. I’m sure you realize that the spike contributes to the overall speed calculation. Average speed is cruising speed. It’s where you set your pace to go between point A and Point B or back to A. Nobody has yet to touch on that topic. If you go back and look at my logs, you’ll see that trips of 15 to 16 mile duration were consistently finished at 4.6 mph average, regardless of tidal conditions or wind. Tidal flow obviously changed because the trips occurred over the course of a few weeks, and tides advance roughly about 6 hrs 40 minutes each day. Yet a 21.5 mile trip had an avg speed of 4.99 mph, because most of the trip was cross current rather than into or with current. Both 4.6 avg mph and 4.99 avg mph were my cruising speed, or average speed, based on the effect of conditions on cruising speed/average speed. It doesn’t matter whether that is considered slow or fast, but it does put into perspective the question of how distance affect avg speed and how that relates to conditions. Almost 1/2 mile faster on a trip that is 5 miles further. It’s neither the top speed of the bost or my potential, but simply what that 145 boat could do under the prevailing conditions. Someone prone to arguing might miss the obvious point of how conditions affect speed (speed depends on wind, current, tide and waves). Repeat it fast enough and it sounds brilliant, but it doesn’t answer the question. I read your post about Dunning-Kruger.
1 Like
Thought you were paddling from now on
I didn’t paddle. Nothing better to do, so I communicated with Steve. I like communicating with Steve.
3 Likes
average is average, accounts for variables in wind, current, tide…
Question?
Why do you maintain a flat line speed wise?
Say a 4 mph current. Your calm water speed is 4 mph
With current 8 )mph against current (same effort ) 0mph
Why not maintain the same strength of stroke and cadence and let the speed vary.
BTW every year the coast guards here make rescues on a local river (flood cycle). Some rec kayakers get out on the river and the current is faster than their best speed, slowly swept out into the ocean.
2 Likes
I offered advice based on my paddling environment. You’re free to follow your logic and put out the equivalent of 4 mph of effort to go 8 mph in a 4 mph current, then put out equivalent effort going into the 4 mph current and cover zero distance. Now, I’m curious how that solves the problem. We’re discussing two different navigation problems.
You described the conditions of a constant outfow from a river. I agree that you will have to exert 6 mph of effort to make 2 mph progress. However, before taking on THAT challenge, the paddler has to know whether he or she is capable of handling the conditions (a constant outflow current of 4 mph) for the duration of a given distance. For the sake of making an easy calculation, consider a 10 mile section of navigable river without obstructions that has a constant outflow of 4 mph. If a person is only able to average 3.5 mph over 10 miles on a flat lake with no wind or current, the battle is lost. If a person is capable maintaining an average speed of at least 4.5 mph over 10 miles, it will take 20 hours if they remain in an aerobic mode, and by pushing into their anaerobic zone, that time may drop to (+/-) 10 hours.
On open tidal water, things aren’t so simple unless you can accurately assess conditions and regulate your power output, based on conditions. Wind, current, tide and waves react very different than simple constant outflow. I tried to explain it on the open forum and have given up. For example, if you ride a wave to a 7 mph peak speed, your speed will drop to 3.6 mph as you wallow in the trough of the passing wave. Its like hitting the hull speed. So it isn’t as simple as averaging 4.5 mph and benefitting by a 2.5 mph assist going with the conditions and enduring a 2.5 mph deficit on the return. Life just isn’t that simple. Anyone who has accompanied me without a GPS always misreads actual conditions and the impact on speed.
If you want to discuss the topic further, contact me on a side message.
1 Like
Current speed will not directly be a plus or minus to your speed.
Not true.
You and your hull are not in the water current.
Disagree.
Slippage