Paddle length, is there a formula?

Very interesting and I agree with a lot of what RAB says, I like what he says about pushing the top hand forward or not, keeping the paddle verticle longer, goes against what many coach but makes sense to me.
I've used a small mid at 205 and gradually lengthened it to about 208-209 before switching to a mid wing. I found with the small mid during a race it was all cardio that was holding me back, my cardio was at max, no muscle fatigue. That balance changed switching to a mid wing. Now that my cardio is a lot better than it was, perhaps I should try the small mid again, because at times the mid feels to big and slow for me at 209cm but I can only reduce it to 208cm.
When surfing my kayak I prefer the acceleration of the small mid at 205cm, but when the kayak is up to high speed on the wave it feels like I need to change a gear cause I'm paddling flat out and I would prefer the power of my mid, but the mid is slower to accelerate and really hard to power up in stop go situations like kayak surfing. Again, might be a case for a shorter mid wing for me.

Just a quick technical note.

When a wing moves it creates lift.
If you think of an aeroplane wing, the plane moves horizontally, but the lift is generated vertically.

Lift is always generated at 90 deg to the drag component.

Now the resultant force is a combination of the lift force and the drag force.

It is a vector that is always somewhere between the lift and drag force.
If a paddle has a large angle of attack and generates more drag force in this inclination, the resultant force is now moved more towards the direction of drag than than the lift.

A small blade struggling to keep up with a heavy load, slips a bit creating an angle of attack that creates more drag.
With the extreme of this being a stall, where the drag forces have become very large compared to the lift forces.

As the resultant force is a vector of these two forces, the direction of applied force changes and no longer point the way you want with high drag force dominating, which is very inefficient.

A flat blade pulled directly backwards is an example of using drag force and not lift force, with the resultant force being aligned directly with the drag force.




Stew, my take from a theoretical point of view;

The bigger the paddle, the higher it's inherent drag is.
More wetted area, larger water displacement.

So if you are only using a fraction of the lift available from that paddle, you have higher drag forces than needed.
These higher drag forces will skew the resultant force just as surely as if you angled the face of the blade a little, not as much, but it is surely there.

So an inherent loss of efficiency that if not required is just wasting energy.

That and the fact that a bigger paddle will always be heavier and more wind affected.

So if you are paddling a long way at low power and don't require the extra blade size to accelerate onto waves, you are better on a small paddle.

You may find that paddlers that prefer small blades have a quite small torque generating ability and rely on getting in a few strokes to generate that acceleration, whereas a paddler with a lot of torque can just pull harder to accelerate.

hey stew
i can't believe there are so many people out there that have wasted so much of there time and money in development all you need is the fastest lightest boat made the shortest paddle shaft possible with the biggest blades you can get and thats it aparrantley all you need.
millions of dollars wasted.
for your sake and think kayaks turn your computer off go have a beer might seeya at the doctor race if you come over jamo.
ps i'll be the one in the biginner boat with the little paddle

all you need is the fastest lightest boat made the shortest paddle shaft possible with the biggest blades you can get and thats it aparrantley all you need.

If that's what you got from this thread, you either didn't read it, or didn't understand it.

I do agree, the beer is the most important part.....

Earlier in this discussion I related my experience of a difference between a mid and large size blade:

"I currently use a Swing LD from Knysna, but my old Bratcha II which was about 6 mm wider and quite a bit longer in the blade, was a lot more stable in the water..."

I`ve got to say that I wasn`t convinced with RAB`s (considerate) explanation:
"Paddle size is not a function of anything but how strong you are.
It's as simple as that." - which suggests I must have had psychological issues with my mid-wing.

The practical reason to why I wasn`t convinced is that on flat water, on either my narrow ocean ski, K1 or spec ski, both were equally solid (so far, in agreement with RAB). But on a bumpy ocean they were only equal when paddling my spec ski - I couldn`t differentiate in the actions of the paddles - ie, I felt comfortable using either paddle. Where there was a difference though, was when using my tippier ocean ski. Here the combination of tippy ski on rough ocean was enough to show up flaws in my paddle stroke when using the smaller area paddle - I don`t think it was anything to do with strength or it would have shown itself in the other situations too.

But Stew`s comment does shed light on my predicament:
"A wing paddle is a wing paddle, they are all designed to have a good catch, but as we know, some have a stronger catch than others. A large blade size will give that feeling of a good catch, even if the blade placement is poor at the front of the stroke."

It was great to have input from both RAB and Stew as it really helps to get my head around some of the technical stuff (can`t enjoy the banter over a beer if you don`t have an opinion and reasons!). So, thank you to you both and the other contributors.

Sorry RAB, I do have one last nagging question about something you wrote though:

"Maybe Tim has come to the conclusion that he is faster by allowing some small slip to get his cadence up?"

How do you know Tim is allowing some small slip? Maybe his combined body weight, ski weight, superior paddling technique and fitness is allowing him to work his paddle as (or more) efficiently than a larger blade? Just saying like....

Owen

You're right, can't truly comment on Tim until we know his body weight really.

So a modification to my statement and one that I have said before, but simply forgot about in my last dribble.

Paddle size is simply related to your weight and how bloody strong you are.

If Tim is a light guy, then his paddle may very well be operating very efficiently very little slip and he may just happen to slip into his magic cadence zone at the speed he goes.

Probably why the bastard is so fast.


Now to throw a spanner in the works, Oscar is a strong fat bastard, yet still says he uses a midwing. (unless he classes a large midwing as still being a midwing...)


I also seem to remember reading that Freyer used the largest Epic wing for her around Australia jaunt.

Go figure.

But I'm thinking that because she was hauling a heavily laden boat, maybe she found that a large blade was required to get the thing up and running.

The simple fact is because you use a really short shaft you can use a large blade. If you used a longer shaft you would still be able to use a larger blade but would fatigue sooner. It's all about leverage. Give us an idea what sort of conditions you paddle in.
I have a theory that you don't actually paddle at all, but are in fact in prison (possibly for a computer based scam) and spend all your waking hours at the keyboard...when your not making numberplates. Or you're a public servant.

I do find that I personally don't submerge the paddle much with a really short shaft. It really only just submerges the very top of the blade.
But I went to a larger blade long before I went to a short shaft.

Because of this, I often wonder how an extreme teardrop paddle would perform.
I have tried a small one in a teardrop shape and thought it was quite nice.



Another interesting thing I found, is that the shorter the paddle I use, the wider the absolute spacing of my hands.



And what colour/numbers/letters would you like on that sir.

dicko
apparantly i'm just up the road from you email me at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. if interested might be able to catch up for paddle.

Rightarmbad wrote: I also seem to remember reading that Freyer used the largest Epic wing for her around Australia jaunt.

Go figure.

But I'm thinking that because she was hauling a heavily laden boat, maybe she found that a large blade was required to get the thing up and running.

Freya used a small mid wing for her Australian trip (and her current trip).

Generally large blades and heavy loads don't make a good mix, especially when you are going for 50-60 km/day daily averages.

Freya and I circumnavigated Iceland together in 2007 in a successful speed record attempt. For the Iceland trip she mainly used an Epic mid wing and occasionally, a large.

I'm a fan of small blades. I used a carbon Greenland paddle for that trip (and for circumnavigating Newfoundland). Even a narrow Greenland paddle should not slip and should feel like it is buried in cement on the catch, if your technique is sound (wing technique works very good with a Greenland paddle).

Smaller blades train you to be more precise with technique. When I first switched from a mid to a small mid wing for flatwater racing (using an Epic 18X), it initially felt like the blades were "slipping" and that I was overpowering the paddle. After a few months of practice the small wing felt as solid as the mid wing and my time trials did not suffer. That said, I'm not saying that smaller is always better. It depends on many factors, including personal preference.

I now alternate between the mid and small for racing but prefer the small or my Greenland paddles for ultra-long distance events.

Greg Stamer

How much actual area does a greenland paddle have?
They look small, but being very long that may just be an illusion.

The deepest submerged part of the blade would certainly have quite solid water to connect with.

Do You know personally the blade Freya used?
Or just second hand information like me? Although I thought I read it on her blogsite or an Epic site online.

I was certainly surprised to read a large blade, as I have paddled kayaks with a small midwing and thought that it would be the optimum.

I do like that I can get scappy with a larger blade and it doesn't appear to suffer.
Especially in moving soft white water.

I have a mid sized blade that feels almost identical to the Epic mid, but it won't shudder like the Epic, but when pushed hard, it definitely won't lock up like the larger blade.
It actually feels to have a stronger catch than the larger blade too.

Rightarmbad wrote: How much actual area does a greenland paddle have?
They look small, but being very long that may just be an illusion.

The deepest submerged part of the blade would certainly have quite solid water to connect with.

That is true, especially when used with a wing stroke. One disadvantage of a Greenland paddle (GP) is that you need "solid water". If you can't fully bury the blade, you don't get full power. This is a consideration for rock gardens, etc, where a shorter blade is easier to get a clean catch due to obstructions.

A GP is narrow but the surface area is spread out, so it is a bit of an illusion that they are "small". The carbon GP that I use for expeditions has a blade that is 8.89 cm (3.5") wide X 83.8 cm (33") long. The overall paddle length is 222 cm (88"). Ignoring the taper of the blade (a significant error), this gives a very rough area of 115 square inches. The Epic small mid wing advertises a surface area of 114 square inches.

The loom of a GP is short, so they work best for me in kayaks that have very low seating with very narrow width and volume. Even a kayak like an unladen 18X, NDK Greenlander Pro, etc, has too much foredeck volume to be optimal with my favorite Greenland paddles, but as the kayak is laden to the gills for an expedition (with the kayak often submerged to the seam line), this becomes less of an issue. FWIW, I don't prefer a Greenland paddle with my V12 or K1.

Do You know personally the blade Freya used?
Or just second hand information like me? Although I thought I read it on her blogsite or an Epic site online.

I have first-hand knowledge of what she used in Iceland. For Australia and later, I'm relying on personal conversations with her. On her webpage, she gives the following information
"On my solo record circumnavigation of Australia I used a small midsize full carbon 205 cm 652 g epic wing paddle – nothing less or else!

And I’m going to use the same one on my circumnavigation of South America now".

I was certainly surprised to read a large blade, as I have paddled kayaks with a small midwing and thought that it would be the optimum.

A fully loaded expedition kayak (for a long unsupported trip) feels like paddling a half submerged log -- especially for the first hours when you are accustomed to an unladen kayak. It has so much mass that a smaller blade is much easier on the body to get it up to speed, but a spare large blade can sometimes be great for following seas and for variety as the conditions change.

Greg Stamer

Rightarmbad wrote: Just a quick technical note.

When a wing moves it creates lift.
If you think of an aeroplane wing, the plane moves horizontally, but the lift is generated vertically.

Lift is always generated at 90 deg to the drag component.

Now the resultant force is a combination of the lift force and the drag force.

It is a vector that is always somewhere between the lift and drag force.
If a paddle has a large angle of attack and generates more drag force in this inclination, the resultant force is now moved more towards the direction of drag than than the lift.

A small blade struggling to keep up with a heavy load, slips a bit creating an angle of attack that creates more drag.
With the extreme of this being a stall, where the drag forces have become very large compared to the lift forces.

As the resultant force is a vector of these two forces, the direction of applied force changes and no longer point the way you want with high drag force dominating, which is very inefficient.

A flat blade pulled directly backwards is an example of using drag force and not lift force, with the resultant force being aligned directly with the drag force.




Stew, my take from a theoretical point of view;

The bigger the paddle, the higher it's inherent drag is.
More wetted area, larger water displacement.

So if you are only using a fraction of the lift available from that paddle, you have higher drag forces than needed.
These higher drag forces will skew the resultant force just as surely as if you angled the face of the blade a little, not as much, but it is surely there.

So an inherent loss of efficiency that if not required is just wasting energy.

That and the fact that a bigger paddle will always be heavier and more wind affected.

So if you are paddling a long way at low power and don't require the extra blade size to accelerate onto waves, you are better on a small paddle.

You may find that paddlers that prefer small blades have a quite small torque generating ability and rely on getting in a few strokes to generate that acceleration, whereas a paddler with a lot of torque can just pull harder to accelerate.

I'm still confused. All you are providing is the technicalities of wing paddles without telling me why my choice of paddle is wrong.

Please let me know why using a small Gut shape set at 209 is the wrong paddle for me, as you have previously stated?

Maybe you can provide us with some video to show how the large paddle and short shaft work in your case so I can see for myself where I might be going wrong?

Thanks.

I don't think I ever said that the paddle you were using was wrong.
Just that maybe some on these boards should give shorter paddles a go as I have found it beneficial and maybe others will too.

I then went on to speculate why.

You will notice that my last post supports both sides of the fence in regards to size.
You are quite short now at 209cm so if anything you support my theories.

So a question for you.
Have you tried a really short and/or larger blade?

I thought that 210cm was stupid when I first tried it, the same when I first tried 205cm, so all I'm really saying is that sometimes we write off something without enough consideration or actual testing.

Our boats are not K1's, we paddle in a completely different environment, yet most if not all our paddling technique comes from our brothers, not from within our own ranks.

From what I see, this sport is really still in it's infancy, we are not SLSC boats doing round the cans and we are not flat water specialists.
So I think it is time for us to do our own experimentation and try even the ludicrous, just in case we have missed something.

Your current paddle choice may be spot on for you, especially if you have followed your nose and tried a few things that you thought maybe the right thing for you and not just done what everybody else does.

Just a footnote, when I say a midwing can shudder for me, it is not at the beginning of the stroke, it is midstroke at full power.
It is also clean when I run it at a more normal length like 214cm and above.
I have also talked with others that find the same thing.


On another note.
My finances are now sorted, new boat will be my late xmas present.
How much extra for a longer footboard as discussed previously for the UNO MAX?

Feel free to direct that one to my email if you like.

RAB.
back to owens question re tim jacobs and having to know his wieght to make comment.

in the interset of this thread.

i was wondering as we dont know tims wieght if you could give us an example on two different weights say one at 70kg and one at 90kg for his reason for him to use a small blade so as myself,owen and stew might be able to choose the right paddle for our body wieght.

also if you could explain what slip is on a paddle i was under the empression that if a wing paddle used correctly wouldn't actualy slip just travell through the water easier and faster due to less surface area.

I was paddling a BV4 paddle today. 210cm.
Smaller blade than my own and a lot different feel.

I gotta say a really nice feel.

This paddle really responded to a larger load well and stayed very sweet under all conditions.
But it was also longer and worked well at this length.

I also had a quick play with a Meek.

This paddle didn't really work for me, with me having to move the paddle a lot more out to the side and a longer stroke that really extended back too far.
It was also much choosier on the catch and took longer to get a good hold on the water. Also 210cm.

It did encourage a lot of thought and care with the stroke, especially thinking of a good forward reach and careful catch.
I would own one as a great training tool, but it's performance paled in comparison to the BV4 for me.


So, as always, it depends.

Sorry to say it, but the variables between paddles means that there can be no black and white answers, as they all behave a little bit differently.

So all that can be garnered are trends, with the only real comparisons being drawn between differing sizes of paddles in the same mold.

My own paddle, paddles a lot longer than these two.
Hence my shorter length.


Because paddle length has such a significant effect on your stroke mechanics, you can only continue your search for paddling nirvana that works the best with your body, as long as your wallet can sustain it, or do what I do and beg borrow and steal anything in your sight.

Now the slip thing;

If the paddle works in purely lift mode, (we will neglect here the very first movement just after the paddle has hit the water and before a significant circulation around the wing has been established), if it were to be held perfectly vertical (which we approach with varying degrees of success), the paddle moves straight outwards from the boat with respect to the water.

This will appear and feel to the paddler to be about a 45deg backward movement in relation to themselves and the boat.

There will only be sideways movement with the lift generated at 90 deg to that, which moves us forward.
If there is any amount of rearward movement of the paddle with respect to the water, it is slip.

The wing is overloaded to some degree and the lift generated cannot support the load placed on it.

Why is this bad?
Back to the previous post.
If a wing slips, then the actual movement, no longer straight out, has effectively created a different angle of attack; a higher/ steeper one.

This creates much more drag than a wing with more lift, operating without slip.
Hence, big planes get bigger wings, otherwise they could simply just angle the wings for more attack to generate the extra lift required.

But physics says we can't get something for nothing and high drag is the penalty.

Now remember from earlier on, that the resultant force is a vector of both drag and lift.

In a purely lift dominated scenario, the wing paddle moves outward and the lift is generated in our preferred direction of going forwards.
All is sweet in the world and we only loose a small amount of power to the very small drag.

Now lets load the bugger up until the wing has a slight rearward movement, or the paddler turns the blade a little to give it more bite.
Either way, you now have a higher angle of attack and a much larger drag force.

Now back to the resultant thing.

With the resultant force being a vector of the now larger drag component and the generated lift, this skews the direction of the resultant from pointing nicely to push us forward to some other direction, and in this case the other direction is to make it harder to pull the blade through the water, just like a plane has to apply more power to overcome the extra drag holding it back when it uses a higher angle of attack.

At liftoff, most planes wings are too small and they adopt a nose up attitude to generate more upward force, this requires big gobs of power to overcome the slippage and therefore extra drag.

Once cruising, the planes go back to a condition where lift is again dominant and the plane cruises nicely with low power and low fuel consumption.

So the decision for the aircraft designer and for us, is to choose a wing that operates at best efficiency under the loads applied.

A smaller wing has less inherent drag due to it's smaller area and profile, but will struggle and be inefficient under higher loads.
These loads being predominately the weight/drag of the plane/paddler.

So it all comes down to wing profile as to how much lift it generates, and while area can be a guide, the subtleties of the shape vary a fair bit, especially as we are really bad at holding the wing at a good angle for it to work well.

That's why there are twists along the blade to try and change the lift profile of the paddle to suit our varying angles and motions that we can produce with our bodies.

Now, all of us being different, we all need a different paddle, but always, a heavier paddler and/or a harder to push boat will require more forward force than a lighter/ easier to move boat, so generally a bigger paddle will be required to operate efficiently for bigger guys.

Now don't forget that this all gets complicated by the fact that a higher wing speed generates more lift than a slower one, so if you got the muscle to move a smaller one faster, it will stay within it's efficient lift dominated mode under greater loads than a slower moving one.

So a stronger paddler can actually get away with a smaller paddle than a mid packer.

Quite perverse isn't it.

A longer paddle can encourage a faster wing speed, but at the expense of creating a stroke that goes back to far and this invariably has the paddle angled towards the bottom of the sea.

Now remember that the lift is created at 90 deg to the movement of the paddle, so a bunch of our precious horsepower is now pointing to the bottom of the sea and only serves to lift the boat up and down.

So a compromise must be struck, that allows us to have enough lift generated with as little as possible drag, and have it all push us forwards not any other direction.

So once you have as much paddle speed as possible, by using as long a blade as you can without compromising your direction of force, and by pulling as quick as possible, in other words make more power, if you still cannot generate enough lift to sustain the load you are applying, then your only other recourse is to use a larger blade. (ignoring differing blade shapes here).

A lighter person/ boat combination will make this easier as loads are lower.

So, low body fat, powerful elite with a good stroke and a light boat, may very well, and do actually appear to do so, get away with a reasonably small paddle.


The corollary of this is, if you feel like you want a bigger blade, it is probably a sign that you are not a powerful, low body fat, carbon boat paddling elite, and just a mid packer.

Oh well, looks like I just signed my own fate.




Or maybe you have discovered that by going to a shorter paddle and suffering a reduced paddle speed/ lift, you go to a bigger blade to offset this and quietly smile as your paddle is blown around less, your stability is increased and you gain the benefit of altered stroke mechanics that keep your stroke well forward and even if it looks a little different to the K1 guys, is very efficient.............

Rightarmbad wrote: I was paddling a BV4 paddle today.
I also had a quick play with a Meek.

This paddle didn't really work for me

RAB - You have managed to confuse me My "wing" is a BV4 (series 2LW - branded Bennett,) yet made by Meek Australia.

Trouble is, I don't know the many models of Bennet/Meek.
I just went by what was written on the blade.

But I really did like the one with BV4 written on it.

RAB off to paddle manufacturers website to learn some things.....


I hope the technical dribble wasn't confusing because I try and make it as untechnical as possible.
But it's easy to assume knowledge of readers that isn't there, it's also possible to get mixed up with terms and that shit is just off the top of my head, so there may be a few errors in there.

No doubt if there is, somebody will pull me up on them.

Rightarmbad wrote: I don't think I ever said that the paddle you were using was wrong.
Just that maybe some on these boards should give shorter paddles a go as I have found it beneficial and maybe others will too.

I then went on to speculate why.

You will notice that my last post supports both sides of the fence in regards to size.
You are quite short now at 209cm so if anything you support my theories.

So a question for you.
Have you tried a really short and/or larger blade?




On another note.
My finances are now sorted, new boat will be my late xmas present.
How much extra for a longer footboard as discussed previously for the UNO MAX?

Feel free to direct that one to my email if you like.

But you said no one should use a small blade unless paddling distances of over 40kms. All I'm asking is why I should not use such a paddle size in any distance less than that? And based on your theory, I am using the wrong paddle for me.


Regarding the Uno Max, yes, no problem to do a custom foot plate. Geez you must have some long legs!!

Cheers mate.

owenw wrote:

Rightarmbad wrote: I was paddling a BV4 paddle today.
I also had a quick play with a Meek.

This paddle didn't really work for me

RAB - You have managed to confuse me My "wing" is a BV4 (series 2LW - branded Bennett,) yet made by Meek Australia.

The BV4 is a Meek blade. Sold until early last year by Bennett. Chad also has two other shapes, so it may have been one of those which RAB tried.