Subject: Re: [baidarka] Wood for paddles
From: Peter Chopelas (pac@premier1.net)
Date: Sat Oct 06 2001 - 19:30:36 EDT
Todd la Port emailed this off this but I think was intented for the list, and
for some reason his email address failed when I replied. So I thought I would
post it here, any one else is welcome of course to add their comments.
Peter.
Todd wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: Todd La Porte
To: pac@premier1.net
Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2001 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: baidarka Which Spruce
Peter,
I read with interest this exchange about spruce identification for kayak
construction. Your comments about the structural properties of wood for
aquatic situations were illuminating.
I wonder if you could advise us about the properties of wood for traditional
Adirondack canoe paddles. I understand that spruce is also a traditional
choice for these, but is now very difficult to find, at least in my area
(Washington DC). However, you seem to suggest that Douglas fir could be an
even better alternative. Is this so? Are there other alternatives that we
should consider? Good clear white pine is also getting difficult to acquire,
at least locally, so I'm beginning to wonder whether traditional canoe paddles
are not long for this world.
Todd La Porte
------------------------------------
Hi Todd,
Paddles I know a little less about which woods are best because it seem the
traditional woods used in canoe paddles are not what I would pick. My
personal opinion is that when you make a paddle shaft comfortable enough for
your hands it is plenty strong even with the lightest wood. Though it seems
most wood paddle makers use hardwoods, way too heavy IMO.
I have made paddles from Doug fir [very strong and stiff but on the heavy
side], red cedar [my favorite, light and easy to work], and western hemlock
[inexpensive with strength and weight about in the middle].
The lightest woods are Northern white cedar or red cedar [the lightest of
all], and some types of spruce with balsam fir and Eastern white pine not far
behind, Redwood is not bad either. All would make good paddles, all are very
workable, the cedars and redwood would also be rot resistant, though I think
this is less of an issue with paddles.
The only disadvantage is they offer little strength in cross grain
compression, which is important on the blade edges and tip to prevent dents
and other damage. I saw someone use hardwood edges on a cedar Greenland
blade, it looked nice since it was laminated from smaller pieces and had a
hollow shaft, it only weighed 28 oz. I thought I might try this next, though
I do not have any complaints (yet) with my favorite all red cedar paddle, it
weights only 32 oz. But the tip does get a bit "fuzzy" though I do not take
especially good care of it. Since it has no finish I just re-sand the tip
once a year.
The strongest wood in cross grain compression is white oak, with
Beech-Birch-Hickory not far behind, and then all other oaks. But these are
the heaviest woods, and do not offer enough bending strength to make up for
it. So the best combo would be I think a northern white cedar shaft and
blade, with white oak edges.
Personally I do not consider the paddles as a "work of art" as much as a tool
to get used and beat up, so I do not want to spend too much time or money
getting wood for a paddle. You will likely (like most people including me)
experiment with different size shafts and blade shapes until you find one you
like. My favorite paddle is very light red cedar, but the peice of wood it
was made from was really only good for firewood. It had splits and cracks and
a number of knots--I choose it just to experiment on a junk piece of wood so I
would not ruin a "good" piece with my experiments. It turned out to be my
favorite so far, with lots of glue and filler in all the splits and holes.
I would think any reasonably light wood would work just fine. If you laminate
up hollow shafts (use four flat sticks and just round off the corners) it will
be almost as strong as a solid shaft, and the weight savings would be
significant.
Again, just go out and find something light and cheap, it does not even have
to be perfect (though take care that there are no large defects in the shaft
area, on my junk piece all of the defects either landed a blade or were cut
off the shaft area, I have near perfect grain on the shaft). Carve it up and
go have good time. Once you have a better feel for what you like, then hunt
down that perfect peice of wood. Any of the lighter ones I listed above would
be suitable I think.
FYI the specific gravity of the lightest woods are in the 0.31 to 0.36 range
(ratio of same volume to wt of water), anything above about 0.4 is
unnecessarily heavy (Doug fir is 0.5 and hem-fir 0.41 for reference). the
lighter woods are also easy to plane and sand. Hardwoods are in the .68 to
0.72 range. So if you have something laying around you can weigh it and calc.
the volume and compare it with water (62.4 lb/cu. ft.) and see where it lands.
Also there is a large range within each species, so if you select from a pile,
go for the largest grain size and the lightest in the stack.
Hope this helps, have fun. Let me know what you find.
Peter
-
Baidarka Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be
reproduced outside Baidarka or Baidarka archives without author's permission
Submissions: baidarka@paddlewise.net
Subscriptions: baidarka-request@paddlewise.net
Searchable archive: http://rtpnet.org/robroy/baidarka
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Thu Nov 01 2001 - 01:30:02 EST