Speed: Stroke Tempo v Technique

Harden up? sh1t, f-bom, not swearing? Feel free to teach your kid to speak like that. Don't think it belongs on a public forum.

I'm with Bermy. This is a great website, resource, and forum. No need for foul language, doesn't add anything nor is it a sign of toughness only drags down an otherwise great site.

Bermy wrote: Feel free to teach your kid to speak like that.

Getting a bit emotional now Bermy. I'd advise you not to teach your kid to speak using the internet.

can't see any f-bomb in the post in RAB's post.

Geez if RABS odd "sh1t" comment is swearing then you might have to turn on the family filter for your net connection.

If he or anybody else ever says bl**dy, bugg3r3d and sh1t in the same sentence than lobby the administrators for a life ban because that is really really foul.

the email address response to the spammer selling a iPhone contained a few gems.

Point taken.

But.

I looked back through my last 20 posts and apart from the fake email address in which you have to be well aware of the words and go looking for them in, I simply haven't used conventional swear words.


I have used:
crap
faaaark - a very waterered down version of the original
shite - again a very watered down version of the original(for example; bears don't shite in the bush).
bloody - a standard colloquial Aussie term
bugger me - see above

What I did see is that all of them were context appropriate, and what better way to stop your kids uttering every second word a swear word, than by seeing them in real action doing something useful, showing an emotion or feeling that the English language has left us short of expressing and that is almost universally understood.


Although after almost 800 posts on this site, I may have stuffed up a few times, oh crap sorry , I mean I may have have made a few grammatical errors and typed a near expletive here and there.(you can't really swear on here, the filters will stop you)

After you have posted that many times about subjects that you are passionate about, lets see your record..........


Jono, do you want me to remove my post?
I went to do so, but your apology shows the bigger man and that may loose context.

It also sort of reminds others that the community will not tolerate that sort of thing.

Yeah, I was not really seeking anyone's approval. Thanks anyway.

I was merely apologizing for an error in my own (Cabernet fueled) judgement.

A wise old client once told me - 'a drunk man's words are a sober man's thoughts"

My words may have been puerile and have since been edited.

My thoughts on pretentious blowhards and braggards remains unchanged.

As to your post - feel free to leave it up there if it gives you a thrill....a little monument to your own awesomeness there sheriff.

You RAB, can go ahead and read your own signature again - maybe it only applies when you are the one doing the talking?

Me, I don't talk much so when I do, I probably mean what I say.

Wow. Just had a glance at the posts. Got much more value than I bargained for when I raised this topic.

Should have put it under the title: "Speed: Tempo v Temperament".

Well, it was an interesting observation that started that thread even though the discussion was derailed in between.

What makes it interesting is that it really is not obvious that the relationship should be linear. Power requirements go up disproportionately with speed, so it means that each stroke has to become more powerful (and not just faster - because the speed relative to the water has changed too). Alternatively, it could have been that increasing stroke rate is biomechanically inefficient, so stroke rates increase slower than speed (but therefore power would increase even more dramatically). So a remarkable insight, but an interpretation depends a bit on your data and the source of variation. Are you comparing within an individual across distances? Across individuals for comparable distances? A mixture? So what do you think is going on?

A very good point. I’ve wondered about that too. My understanding was that the power requirement goes up disproportionately as speed rises (as you highlight), so I was expecting to see a relationship where the speed increase was less than the stroke increase. I was surprised when the rough data suggested a straight line.

I’d need to dig into the rowing research to get the technical answer. I’ll see what I can come up with.

I also won’t rule out that the extremely rough stats could be hiding something, so I’m interested if anyone has some more accurate data. The stats come from a combination of my count of paddle cadence on a range of paddlers where I could get video footage and calculate or estimate the speed (eg known speed across an Olympic sprint course) plus measurements I’ve made on water with a garmin and gopro.

These measurements are not precise and I can easily come up with good reasons why both the low end and high end could be skewed by 10-15%. But I suspect that’s not enough to change a straight line relationship into an exponential one.

Unless you shorten your stroke, or the paddle slips, it can be nothing but a linear relationship.

It is partly because of the medium that slows you more the faster you go that you don't get more glide at higher speeds that keeps this relationship.

Your actual distance per stroke should only change but a little as speed varies.
If you do find a major difference then your stroke is falling apart or you paddle does not have the capability to support the force you are applying and you should change to a different one that will.

Candela, care to do a review for those of us that are interested?

I contacted them early on in the piece and they had the electronics sorted but were still sorting out packaging/waterproofing.

It would be nice to hear how they did, especially in regards to ease of use.


It would be nice if Garmin would make a dedicated paddle function for the 310 and include cadence instead of using 'other' or probably 'cycling' if you wish to use the cadence feature.

AGA wrote: A very good point. I’ve wondered about that too. My understanding was that the power requirement goes up disproportionately as speed rises (as you highlight), so I was expecting to see a relationship where the speed increase was less than the stroke increase. I was surprised when the rough data suggested a straight line.

I’d need to dig into the rowing research to get the technical answer. I’ll see what I can come up with.

AGA, maybe not entirely relevant to your point, but for Olympic rowers, the relationship between stroke rate and speed was analyzed by Valery Kleshnev using data from 53 races. Purely cross-sectional, across people and boats, and within a narrow band of speeds (4-6m/s) and stroke rates, but here is the best-fitting quadratic equation.
y = -0.603813x^2 + 10.397554x
y is the stroke rate, x the speed in m/s. 5m/s is 18km/h. So here is a pronounced deviation from linearity, more like my second hypothesis, but that is more understandable from cross-sectional data.

OK. Dug up some facts. Strangely enough, most contributors’ points on this topic are somehow correct – even if they appear contradictory. The Kleshnev link was handy RSTRUM as when I followed up that formula, there were a few more answers.

Boat Speed is the product of the stroke rate and the stroke distance – if the force applied does not change. That is – the relationship between speed and stroke rate is predominantly straight line if viewed in isolation. (Kleshnev’s underlying equation is Speed = Stroke rate x Stroke distance. The other formula translates this into a rule of thumb based on the stroke distance of a rower I suspect).

However – if the force applied through the paddle changes as stroke tempo increases – the stroke rate can move differentially to the change in speed. That is, you can improve speed by applying more force – theoretically without an increase in tempo, or vice versa.

Where some of the confusion occurs in paddling (as compared to rowing) is that because the paddle is always in motion the paddle speed will largely move in sync with both force applied and with the boat speed. (For rowers the oar is only pulling for some of the time).

From what I can see the rowing fraternity and presumably the high end kayakers spend a lot of time assessing and measuring this combination of stroke tempo, speed and force to ascertain the most efficient balance for the paddler/rower.

So, yes, higher tempo would be a key ingredient in higher speed, and yes, technique which improves the ability to maintain and apply the force would also be a contributor to speed.

I think we’ve conclusively proved that paddling faster, pulling harder and applying the force more efficiently will generally lead to a better ski speed.….Ouch. No easy solution there. I better get back on the water.

Rowing is far different, the recovery time in paddling is a far less proportion of the stroke than in rowing.
The gearing in rowing can be changed to a far greater extent as well.

Rowing is basically like a single cylinder engine whereas paddling is like a twin cylinder.

It can easily be calculated that some current rowing boats are too light and will slow them down, whereas a surfski cannot even come close to a too light ski.

Paddling is a very linear progression as stroke length varies so little with speed, apart from going very slow and using an exaggerated glide.
In the range that matters, there is very little change in stroke length.

RAB - either you take the point or your don't. Your analogy of teaching kids not to do something by letting them read it is unintelligible drivel. Come on on man! If I post something that will offend your values and you say so I will be sensitive to yours. Seemingly you're not and i think you are incapable of seeing another's point of view.

Jono - agreed. In support of your mantra one that comes to mind is 'don't argue with an idiot, he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience'

Start new thread Bermy! If yr stuck for a title I will give you one.

AKA and RAB this is an interesting topic especially if combining this with the mid size blade vs large blade arguements. For me as tempo increases it is easier to feel better technique with the bigger wing.

For me, the larger blade simply has a quicker catch, that's the benefit I find.

As I age, my torque is dropping, so my only way to compensate the loss in power is by getting in more strokes of the same torque.

Quicker catch along with a shorter length facilitates that.

The biggest problem I face with a super short paddle is that as the whole stroke comes closer to the water, the top arm effectively gets longer as it approaches shoulder height, that means I have to let my top hand bend considerably to keep it closer to my body or the paddle looses it's verticality in the water.

I think that for me and probably most larger men, as your paddle length comes under 210cm, you really do need to bend that top arm more and more.

If you look at small K1 paddlers, the top hand is way above their head, this makes it effectively shorter and they can pretty much paddle with straight arms.

If you are taller and start heading to a shorter paddle then something has to change, and the easiest way I can see is to keep the top hand in close to your eyes.


Off to go find a good gym and see if I can rekindle some of my torque back.

Bermy, please go back and reread my post.

The first two words were, 'point taken'.

I did offer up some things for you to consider, but you will not find a single even semi swear type word since that time.

RAB - Thanks. Apologies for the hijack SuperTeddy (no title requested).

With you on the higher cadence. Sitting on a 205 paddle at 6'1''. Shorter paddle (and smaller blade) makes it easier to get the speed up - because of a higher rev count?

Me at 6'3", long legs and arms running 205cm, but a mid/large blade for a quicker catch and a generally shallower blade in the water, which comes out quicker at the back and generally moves my stroke forward.

At this setup, I still have a slower cadence than any other person I have paddled with.

Because I am at the end of the bell curve for both height and now heading that way for age, 'normal' just is not the best for me.

A smaller paddle simply does not work at this length for me, it needs to go deeper in the water.

But yes, basically, I am doing anything I can to up my rating without losing full muscle engagement or having the paddle be inefficient by slipping.

Next step is get into the gym as well as try a very teardrop shape paddle.

Hopefully the teardrop has an even quicker catch and doesn't need to go deep in the water as most of it's area is near the tip, this allows the possibility of trying even shorter lengths.

Although air strokes in the waves may become an increasing consideration at those extreme short lengths of sub 205cm.