From: Guillemot@aol.com
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 22:10:17 -0500
Message-Id: <950314220634_49757743@aol.com>
To: baidarka@imagelan.com
Subject: Traditional Paddles part 1/2
d like to see some debate about the relative merit of narrow "greenland"
style paddles vs modern wide feathered paddles. I'll start with the premise:
"The only reason Eskimos didn't use wide feathered paddles is because they
didn't have the tools to make them"
===================================================================
It took me a while to start saving the discussion, including my opening
arguments. But my arguement went something like:
===================================================================
The wood available in the arctic is primarily drift wood as it is beyond the
treeline. This limits the selection of wood but it would probably still be
pretty good. No dimensioned lumber was available. A 7" wide blade would
require
forming from a 10" to 14" log to get favorable grain. A big job with stone
age
tools. However, accurately splitting wood is possible using stone age tools.
Next is shaping the blank. This again can probably be acheived using stones
and flame.
A feathered blade also requires good glues. It is almost impossible to get
a
piece of wood where the grain is favorable for both blades. A tree that grew
twisted might work but then the grain in the shaft would be poor.
In case it is not obvious I consider good waterproof glues a tool
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope the following accurately reflects the discussions posted. I know I
missed some good discussions here but ....
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Smith, greg.n.smith@DaytonOH.ncr.com
===================================================================
Agreed. Paddle designs have evolved. Claiming that an paddle design is
better
because it's older and "more traditional" is self-defeating.
I have a Manitou designed by Betsie Bay Kayak. BBK is a big proponent of the
Greenland-style paddle. When I attended the West Michigan Coastal Kayaker
Association's June symposium, BBK was the major presence because the company
is
regionally close and half (or more) of the members have BBK boats.
Most of the classes on paddling technique are for the Greenland techniques so
I
felt a little left out (I use a Mitchell Shearwater). I find the Greenland
technique (GT) to be "wasteful" of my energy. Though I have been told the GT
will cause less stress on long trips, I can't use a Greenland paddle. I
weigh
230-240 lbs. I sit in a boat paddling like mad and I don't go anywhere. The
Greenland paddles are like putting a trolling motor on a coal barge. When
I'm
in BIG waves and getting thrown around like the SS Minnow, I want the ability
to
dig in and go.
Don't know if I'll go to the syposium this year but if I do, I'll be the
heretic
paddling a Manitou with a modern paddle.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Web, rwebb@alexandria.lib.utah.edu
===================================================================
My two cents regarding paddles: last summer I was about to buy a brand new
Werner paddle, greenland style (or modified, I guess, I'm no expert) to go
with my new Folbot Greenland II. Then when I got the Folbot, the cheapo
aluminum paddles that came with it so impressed me that I canceled the order
for the Werner paddle and spent the money on a new PFD instead. The Folbot
paddles are aluminum shaft breakdowns, with wide plastic blades and a foam
padding about where your hands go. I use them feathered, because I learned
how to paddle that way and can't get used to non-feathered blades. But
they're light, sturdy (having been used to pry the boat off the shore more
than once!) and efficient. I'm a big guy too, 6'3 and too far over 200 lbs
to
give the figure. I can move either my Greenland II or my plastic version of
the same boat very well with these paddles, and the foam grips are now worn
to perfection, giving me a really good grip and good comfort. The guy I
paddle with has a beautiful wooden paddle, which is very nice, but I
cringe at the thought of pushing my loaded boat off the shore with that
work o' art. Maybe one day I'll break down and get that Werner paddle, but
for now these work just fine.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sherwood Botsford , sherwood@space.ualberta.ca
===================================================================
DonHaines wrote:
: If you look at the Voyageurs, they were STRONG!!!! and they put in 12 to 16
: hour days. They used paddles that are smaller than most of the ones that
you
: can buy today. Most indian tribes used small paddles. You have to be a very
: powerfull person to paddle for a day with an 8 1/2" wide paddle and then to
: get up and repeat for the next day.
The voyageur paddle was also very short. But their boats usually
traveled with only about 6" of free board, so often their butt was even
with the water line. They tended also to be short, which would
encourage a short paddle.
Not sure of cause and effect here, but they paddled at a very high
cadence compared to modern paddlers. 50-60 strokes per minute was
common. One person I talked to said that because of the rough surface
of the birchbark, these canoes decelerated quickly. Maintaining a short
fast stroke was more efficient, he claimed.
Note in passing.
On the St. John's trips with their voyageur canoes (fibreglass, not
bark) the kids are issued with a paddle with a 6" width. But they don't
use that incredible, fast stroke. Usually about 33 strokes/min. And
they do put in 12 hour days, and even the occasional 16.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Grayson Walker, gwalker@rtfm.mlb.fl.us
===================================================================
The native kayaks were often propelled by a single bladed paddle that looks
very much like today's canoe paddle. The small hunting boats were often
propelled by large hand held, shaftless paddles. And of course, some of
the native kayaks were propelled by unfaired double bladed paddles that
look very much like some of today's wide paddles.
Check out Chapell and Zimmerly. We haven't invented much that the originals
didn't try and use or discard. BTW, many of their boats were lighter than
our rotomolded tupperware boats.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
R. Sam Crowley, samiam@yellowstone.esd.sgi.com
===================================================================
There has always seemed to be confusion surrounding what is a Greenland
paddle. Many companies and people seem to think that means a narrow paddle.
Greenland paddles are narrow but that alone does not define them. The blades
are thicker than any of the modern paddle I have seen. Greenland paddles
also required a different stroke. Instead of just pulling back on the paddle
it is sliced downwards through the water then upwards as it is pulled back.
The blade shape produces lift perpendicular to its movement.
As another poster pointed out, the difference between a modern paddle and
a Greenland paddle is the difference between a paddlewheel and a propeller.
The modern paddle and the paddle wheel uses drag. The Greenland paddle and
propeller uses lift.
Sea Kayaker has a couple of articles on Greenland paddles. The Spring 92
issue has an article by George Gronseth and the Winter 87 issue has an
article by John Heath.
Since there are few people left who have the knowledge of the tools or the
techniques used, there are few who can disagree. George Gronseth is a strong
advocate of these paddles. He pointed out that after two years of using one
he is still learning about it.
My point is that the knowledge of the technology developed by the Inuit has
been mostly lost. The technology they developed was very complex and highly
advanced and it is difficult to conclude anything about it from our
perspective. I don't mean to stop any discussion of Greenland paddles, I
just want to qualify it.
>A wide paddle requires good glues in order to laminate up the blade. A
>laminated blade is required to make the paddle strong especially if the wood
is
>not sealed with varnish or paint.
The Greenland paddles I have seen were made from a 2" by 4". They did not
appear weak nor have I heard of one breaking. The two I saw were used over
three years between them. They were not sealed or varnished either. The
Greenland paddles are thicker than any modern paddle I have seen which
would account for their strength.
Some Alaskan Inuit paddles did reach 6" in width. I am not sure if this
meets your definition of narrow or not.
Don't underestimate the ingenuity, determination and patience of the Inuit.
All the wood used in a kayak was from driftwood (as you said). This means
it was split and cut to size with "stone age" tools. I have read an Inuit
took a month (I don't know the total number of hours) to build the frame for
a single with very limited use of modern tools. This frame still needed
skins sewn on it. Some groups of the Inuit also built doubles and triples.
In this context, the job to build a paddle does seem not so big.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rick
===================================================================
>From what I've read and experienced, here are my two cents. The reason the
Greenland paddle was so narrow was that it is more efficient (for the
paddler on a long paddle) to spend his energy moving the paddle through the
water rather than carry the paddle through the air. The extra weight of the
larger blade pays a heavy toll on a long voyage. It is also true that the
larger blade, though more efficient in the water, it is also requires that
the paddler use more strength on each stroke. There is an optimal trade-off
on this one, and it will vary for each paddler, but simply put, it was less
stressful to use a narrow vs. a wide blade and the loss of efficiency is
probably not all that great compared to the fatigue of the paddler.
I also imagine that the wood used, as you point out, was marginal. A
smaller blade produces less resistence in the water and transfers less
torque to the shaft of the blade, perhaps making the whole system less
likely to break (this is supposition on my part).
As to feathering, the need for feathering is a direct result of having a
fat blade that catches a lot of wind when paddling abeam to same. Feathered
blades are advantageous only when paddling in headwinds (if conditions are
bad, you are probably padding into a headwind just to keep your bow into
the waves, thus feathering is of great benefit). When winds are abeam, the
fat blades can catch a lot of air whereas an unfeathered paddle will be
unaffected as its surface is perpendicular to the wind rising off of the
water when it nears the boat. When winds are astern, an unfeathered paddle
can act, to some degree, as a sail that helps push the boat forward, but
which doesn't tend to force the blade upwards (as winds from abeam would
with a feathered paddle). Again, however, the thinner the blade, the less
effect wind has upon the paddle. Considering the weather around Greenland,
this is possibly significant.
There is a bit of supposition and extrapolation in this missive, and I'm
certain that those with better understanding of the Eskimo culture and the
physics involved can add to, or dispute some of this. Much of this came
from articles found in Sea Kayaker (and reprinted from memory, which may be
faulty), and some comes from reading various authors, who may, or may not,
have been on serious drugs (much of the stuff I've read was definitely
influenced by something other than inspiration!). I hope I've qualified
this enough.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Schade, Guillemot@aol.com
===================================================================
Two points: A narrow bladed paddle is not neccessarily lighter. With the
blade destributed over a greater length the weight ends up to be similar. You
are right however because more of this weight is in the water, thus floating
and does not need to be lifted. Second point: (Short physics reminder:
Work=change in Kinetic Energy (K)) Therefore for two boats going the same
speed (same K), the same amount of work was done. The loss of efficiency is
wasted work(it goes to making the water move). So an inefficient paddle means
more work. BUT the narrower blade requires less force to move through the
water, therefore less strength. It is therefore probably more aerobic than
anaerobic for the body. This would explain increased endurance. The thing is,
the point is to move the boat, not the paddle, through the water. A slow
cadence with a wide blade should take no more effort than a high cadence with
a narrow blade. I think the key may have to do with aerobic vs. anaerobic
work.
>As to feathering, the need for feathering is a direct result of having a
>fat blade that catches a lot of wind when paddling abeam to same. ...
>... , the thinner the blade, the less effect wind has upon the paddle....
Yea, feathering definitely is not required for a narrow paddle. One thing
though the force applied by the air is approximatly proportional to that
applied by the water regardless of blade width, i.e. what you lose in air
resistance you lose proportionaly in thrust against the water. I think the
we're back to the aerobic/anaerobic thing, since it doesn't require as much
strength it is less stressfull.
>Greenlanders use a sliding
>motion to extend the paddle out to the side entering the water.
>If your hands can take it, it works well to minimize the area
>exposed to the wind (as in a feathered paddle), and to maximize
>the area in the water.
A sliding stroke is a useful technique in modern paddles as well. It lowers
the blade height in the wind and is useful for additional speed.
gwalker@rtfm.mlb.fl.us (Grayson Walker) writes:
>The native kayaks were often propelled by a single bladed paddle that looks
>very much like today's canoe paddle. The small hunting boats were often
>propelled by large hand held, shaftless paddles. And of course, some of
>the native kayaks were propelled by unfaired double bladed paddles that
>look very much like some of today's wide paddles.
This is a good point. The idea of single bladed paddles is not acknowledged
in the kayaking community these days. Single blade = canoe. Chapell shows at
least as many single blades (if not more) as double.
I have a feeling if pre-white-man Eskimo's had modern tools (including glues)
they would have made more wide bladed paddles. They probably would have not
used them exclusively, but when they were the proper tool for the job.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Schade responding to: Doug Payne, dwpayne@raven.uwaterloo.ca
dp> indicates his first discussion,
DP> indicates his response to my response,
my responses have no leader.
NS> indicates my response to his response to my response ...
===================================================================
dp> But one day I decided to make a narrow-bladed Greenland-style
dp> paddle, just to see what it was like. ..... It took a few km
dp> of paddling for me to realize that I was getting the same
dp> performance from it as I was from my old one. In a timed test,
dp> I hit around 6 knots over 2 km on very calm water. I figured,
dp> "not bad for an old geezer like me". It took a while to adjust
dp> my grip (hands a lot closer together) and stroke (faster
dp> cadence), and to get used to the odd fluttering motion at certain
dp> paddling speeds. .....
Information I've heard support the performance point. I feel that a kayak or
canoe is an easy boat to move. The human body can create more than enough
power to get the boat up to hull speed. The next question is: what is easier
to maintain long term, high cadence/low effort or lower cadence/higher
effort?
DP> For me, a faster cadence with lower effort is much easier to
DP> maintain, and it seems to be easier on my body as well, in much
DP> the same way as a faster cadence in bicycling is easier. It may
DP> not seem natural at first, but it works. I think the trick is to
DP> adjust the stroke to suit the paddle. Greenlanders use a sliding
DP> motion to extend the paddle out to the side entering the water.
DP> If your hands can take it, it works well to minimize the area
DP> exposed to the wind (as in a feathered paddle), and to maximize
DP> the area in the water.
The flutter I think would eventually be tiresome, but is probably only an
issue during high-power acceleration. The flutter is a result of vortex
shedding and indicates a loss of efficiency.
DP> Nope, not all. It just took some getting used to. I had to overcome
DP> a tendency to grip the paddle harder to stop the flutter. Once I
DP> decided that it was OK, I hardly noticed it.
dp> The biggest problem I have with it is that I still feel uncomfortable
dp> using it in rough water, and always revert to the wide blade when
dp> it gets choppy. It just feels like I won't be able to brace properly
dp> with such a narrow blade.
I believe the technique for bracing is slightly different for a narrow bladed
paddle. With a wide paddle you slap the water and depend on a parachute like
effect. With a narrow blade depends more on a sculling brace where the blade
acts like a wing to provide lift. A narrow blade is an efficient wing but
inefficient parachute.
It is the wing effect that makes a narrow blade good for rolling.
dp> I've always felt that the Inuit must have been onto something.
dp> After all, two widely separated groups of kayakers, the Aleuts and
dp> the Greenlanders, developed much the same style of paddle, with
dp> little or no known interaction among one another.
I am sure there was continous minor trade between Aleuts and Greenlanders.
Look at a globe they are not very far apart and the similarity of culture
suggests long term interaction if not the same roots.
DP> I dunno what globe you were looking at, but to me, thousands of
DP> miles of ice, snow, and open water is 'far apart'. The Arctic is
DP> one of the least hospitable places on earth. Although there may
DP> have been some interaction, I can't imagine that there was a regular
DP> highway joining the two cultures.
NS> Point Barrow to Baffin Island is less than 2000 miles (as a Tern flies).
An individual NS> may never make the trip and say, "Dude! Cool paddle. How'd
you make it?" But
NS> ice, snow and water is the Eskimo's home. People lived or traveled
throughout the
NS> region and were bound to meet, tell stories, swap stuff, and steal ideas.
A good
NS> idea will get around.
dp> As for tools, I used a variety of knives and spokeshaves to make
dp> the narrow one, and a MasterCard to make the wide one. But I'm sure
dp> that I could make a laminated wide-bladed paddle, maybe even a
dp> feathered one, using only a minimum of hand tools. It'd take a
dp> lot longer, but I could do it. Take a look at some traditional
dp> Japanese joinery for examples of what can be done without using
dp> modern power tools, adhesives or fasteners.
I use simple tools to make wide paddles, but can those tool create a joint
between two narrow strips of wood that is strong enough to be knocked against
rocks when wet and survive? The Japanese had iron and steel tools, not
obsidian or flint. I think good glue is required to make a wide paddle that
can survive the rigors of everyday use.
Can anyone suggest a glue free joint that would be strong. A dove tail joint
running the length of the blade would be parallel to the grain and easily
split unless the blade was quite thick. This would be hard (but not
impossible) with stone age tools.
DP> Although I have neither the time nor the inclination to try it, I
DP> could imagine a structure similar to a bird's feather with lots of
DP> small strips attached to a central spine. Maybe, maybe not.
A lot of people swear by narrow traditional style paddles. I have not yet
built one to try myself.
DP> While I certainly don't swear by it, I find that it works as well
DP> as, if not better than, a modern asymmetric wide-bladed paddle, in
DP> certain circumstances. It's not a black and white issue. I'll
DP> continue to use and experiment with both, since kayaking is just
DP> a hobby for me. If I needed it to hunt for my daily food, I'd
DP> maybe be a little more religious about it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sherwood Botsford, sherwood@space.ualberta.ca
===================================================================
Actually there was a lot of traffic. Linguistically there is less
difference between alaska innu and at least Baffin Is. innu then between
coastal innu and inland cariboo innu.
Bill Carpenter (Eskimo Dog Foundation, Yellowknife) retells stories
gathered from coastal villagers of casually going for visits to other
villages some 900 miles away, with a journey time of about a week by
dogsled. Having used his dogs, I don't find this unbelievable.
Remember that traffic in technology doesn't require regular trade. It's
just an idea that has to get from one location to another. And the
technology of all the coastal polar tribes, not only in Canada, but all
the way around the arctic circle is remarkably similar.
We now return you to your regular discussion of paddling...
-------------------------------------------------------------------