Tripping paddle build higher leverage/higher cadence?

I took a little test paddle Thursday to check some of my outfitting before taking a canoe-camp trip.

One of the things that became apparent is that I need at least one more paddle - my current paddles are good when seated and moving at a moderate pace. They are not so useful when kneeling and trying to paddle at higher cadence. So, after a dive into the woodpile, a new paddle begins to take shape:



The two finished paddles on the bench are the most used out of my current collection, and are being used as a comparison reference.

Both existing paddles are the same overall length - 48"-50", but have very different handling properties.

• Far left, with a 30" shaft and a rectangular blade 5 1/2" X 18" works best as a hit/switch paddle - the blade is too thick to do a good in-water recovery. and even takes a bit of effort to feather/J to correct at the end of the stroke. (Hey, it was my first paddle. It's going to be a little crude.)
• Middle paddle, with a 25"-26" shaft and that oversized ottertail - 6 1/4" X 23" - is great at in-water recovery. The blade is very fine and flexible. The handle is just about perfect when I am seated. It balances at the lower grip point, just above the blade. I think this paddle would really come into it's own in a light solo mid-station. I think it'd be good for canoe dancing.

Both existing paddles also have some limits:

• Both are rather too short when kneeling - my kneeling station lifts me a good 7"-8" from seated, if I go full vertical kneel. The fine-edge doesn't like having it's blade only partly submerged - it flexes too much; and while the rectangle isn't nearly as fussy about how/where you grip it, neither has the leverage to do a full stroke from that far up.
• The blades are too big for higher-cadence paddling. They both function well at a moderate steady pace, but they get unwieldy when I try to sprint. I feel like the blades themselves are holding me back, and that a slimmer blade would make more of an allowance for "emergency turbo".

So, basic specs for the blank so far, as well as what I'm thinking:

• 69" overall length on the blank, 50" ish shaft.
• Blade is nominally 5" X 18", plus the taper into the shaft. Something like an ottertail that's been stubbed a bit short, at least in this current configuration. This will probably slim down a bit as I play with the balance and feel - I just would rather start too big and work back.
• Lower hand centers at 34" from blade tip. This location -marked by the pencil I have lying on the blank - was based on immersing the blade from a full-height kneel. This also happens to be just about perfectly centered on the length. For comparison, the middle paddle has it's lower-grip aligned at the same point.
• I like my lower grip to be a bit meatier - oval deeper front to back than side to side. I will be laminating on some scales so that I can get this shape. (The maple scales on the middle paddle are for this purpose.)
• Grip is intended to have some form of secondary grip, Kind of perhaps like the one on the beautiful paddle from a previous thread, or maybe like the version that is basically a rectangular bookmark shape - couldn't find an example in my quick search, but I know that it's been shown on the forums. Either way, there's meat there to work with.

See here for the type of grip I have in mind:

Thoughts and feedback on what I might want to watch for or telling my why I'm insane - especially when at this early stage - are welcome.

I think it's a good idea to have a longer paddle because sometime you need the leverage and I like the traditional shape of the one you're working on.

Your thinking differs from mine in that I prefer a shorter paddle for kneeling and fast cadence and a longer one for sitting and a slower stroke. At any rate, the long paddle should be a good addition to your paddle quiver.

I don't know if you are intending on using the full 69 inches, but that's pretty long in my books. Adding a few inches to your other paddles would bring you in around 56 inches, which becomes quite manageable. The last ottertail I built, I stretched it out to 62 inches, thinking I had to make up for the blade length....I now use it as a standing paddle in my freighter canoe, lol.

Just a point about paddle dimensions .... for those of us trying to visualize what you are saying, paddle length IMO is not a good way to describe a paddle when comparing different blade types (or in most other cases as well).

Breaking paddle dimensions down to "Shaft Length" and "Blade Length" is a far more effective way to communicate the paddle dimensions and helps the reader better understand what the builder/writer is trying to convey.

Fitting the paddle to your kneeling position is a matter of figuring out how much longer the shaft needs to be, which can be done by getting in the boat and measuring. Personally, I use a 31" shaft and don't kneel ... if I did and found an additional 4" would be good, then I just adjust the design to a 35" shaft. Now if this is a bit "experimental" and you want to dial in the shaft length, you might consider extending the handle area length by a few inches, then go ahead and do some testing, knowing you can adjust that shaft length to suit your preference.

As far as the blade goes, I think it is all about blade area for purpose, and I concur that higher cadence generally requires an area reduction. If you knew the area of each of your blades it would take some of the guess work out of the design. The simplest way I have found to determine blade area (which can be a pita to calculate) is by simple pattern weight method.

I have a 2' x 3' paper pad I use for designs, but I also use 1/8" hardboard for patterns and that works fine as well. In your above case of 5" x 18" blade, draw a rectangle on your pattern material, then draw in your blade shape. Cut the rectangle out and weigh it ... divide the area of 90 square inches (5 x 18) by the weight and you have the area/weight. So if the weight is 1 ounce, this becomes 90 square inches per ounce. Cut out the blade shape and reweigh the pattern, lets say it is .75 ounces ..... the area of the blade pattern is 90 x .75 = 67.5 square inches.

IMO figuring the blade areas gives you a better chance of zeroing on the best shape right at the design stage.

Brian

+1 to thinking of it in terms of blade- and shaft-length, rather than overall length.
I'm a bit confused as to how a paddle that works sitting would be too short kneeling. Kneeling brings your body closer to the water and lowers your shoulders; I'd think a shorter shaft will get the paddle up, out and forward quicker than a longer, all else being equal.
I build paddles to roughly an inch below chin height when I'm standing, and that seems to work sitting or kneeling. I draw the blade I want and then whatever room is left over between that and my chin is how long the shaft is. My shortest paddle is an ottertail that's maybe two inches below chin height, with close to a 30" blade, and that's most effective for me kneeling and high-cadence because of the relatively short shaft.

Thanks for the feedback so far!

lowangle al said:

Your thinking differs from mine in that I prefer a shorter paddle for kneeling and fast cadence and a longer one for sitting and a slower stroke

Click to expand...

MyKneesHurt said:

I'm a bit confused as to how a paddle that works sitting would be too short kneeling. Kneeling brings your body closer to the water and lowers your shoulders;

Click to expand...

Hmm... I wonder if this comes down to a difference in seating arrangement? My seat is a mid-rise, 8"-9" off canoe bottom. If i kneel and sit all the way back on my heels, I might be an inch lower. Mostly, when I kneel my upper leg is pretty much vertical - which gains me several inches above seated height. I mostly kneel when I need a more athletic "maneuvering" stance, at least when running the tandem. My seated paddles really can't reach at that height.

---

RE: measuring paddles by shaft + blade, instead of LOA. Good point. I've edited shaft lengths into the first post, and will continue to refer to them in future posts.

---

@Cruiser: I'll keep that method in mind for keeping track of area. For starters, I'll play with some estimates:

• Rectangle blade is 99 square inches
• Existing ottertail (maybe not quite an ottertail, but the proportions are wrong for a beavertail) is approximately an ellipse. so figure ~108 square inches.
• An ellipse at 5" X 18" will be about 70 square inches. Current outline is a little chunkier than this.

---

Regarding shaft length: It is a bit long. If we go by @MyKneesHurt 's chin-length, I'd be going for 62" loa, 44" shaft. This is part of why I intend the guide/secondary grip - there are times when I think I will want the full leverage, but maybe not constantly. I also prefer balanced paddles, so the top of the shaft helps counterbalance the blade.

Cruiser said:

Fitting the paddle to your kneeling position is a matter of figuring out how much longer the shaft needs to be, which can be done by getting in the boat and measuring

Click to expand...

True. I went to the expedient of paddling, and marking where on the shaft my lower grip should be when the blade was in-water.

Generations of paddlers, called flat water marathon racers, have empirically proven the most effective and efficient flat water blade shape for high cadence paddling—namely, the marathon canoe racing blade shape. To emulate that, simply copy the dimensions of a ZRE racing paddle blade. Hint: it's definitely NOT an animal tail shape.

That just leaves shaft length to determine, which is a function of your torso length, arm length, whether you sit or kneel in your canoe, and the freeboard of your canoe at your paddling position. To determine shaft length empirically for yourself, sit or kneel in your canoe with your typical gear load at your paddling station with a something like a broom stick or anything long and straight. Then, measure the distance from your top hand (grip) to where the stick enters the water. That's the shaft length.

Specialized paddling such as whitewater usually requires different shaped blades and longer shaft lengths, and stand-up paddling requires even longer shaft lengths. Hit & switch paddling is more easily effectuated with bent shaft paddles than straight shaft paddles and with light paddles than heavy paddles.

Interesting thing about those ZRE paddles: They list blade sizes as 8.5" X 19" or close, but if you look at the images, it's pretty obvious that they are counting the narrow waist/angled ferule part. The actual working face is roughly 8" X 9" with all of the corners taken off fairly aggressively, so a blade area in the mid-60 sq. in. or so.

Interestingly, one of my searches had ZRE bragging about how much less weight you lift in an hour when using one of their paddles. The figure they promoted was based on a cadence of 70 strokes per minute. That's pretty fast! A lot faster than I anticipate working at.

I've been thinking of adding a bent blade for a while now, just to see what the fuss is about, so this info was useful.

I did get some shop time, so the paddle bench currently looks like this:


The nails were being used as alignment pins, The blade angle on the bent is nominally 11.5 deg. (Layed out as a 5:1 taper, some assembly variance expected.) Bent will be getting a T-grip, and I've had good results in the past with laminated material for this. That's what the funny rectangle block is for.

If the clamping stages look mismatched, I messed up the setup for some joints and needed to disassemble and re-glue them.

sailsman63 said:

Interesting thing about those ZRE paddles: They list blade sizes as 8.5" X 19" or close, but if you look at the images, it's pretty obvious that they are counting the narrow waist/angled ferule part. The actual working face is roughly 8" X 9" with all of the corners taken off fairly aggressively, so a blade area in the mid-60 sq. in. or so.

Click to expand...

They list the blade area on their site. The 8.5" width blade is 110 sg. in. The 8" blade is 100 sq. in.

My ZRE race blade is exactly 8" wide. When I measure its surface area (one side, of course) using the" string method, it's closer to 60 sq in. I'm not sure how they're measuring it. Anyway, that's my best paddle for high cadence. My wider recreational Zav is pretty darn good too, but I can't keep that same cadence with it as long. For highest cadence, I'd go relatively narrow and short in the blade.

I am not a racer, but I learn from racers.

I use an assortment of GRE 12 degree bent carbon paddles for racing and training. They are very similar in size, weight and shape to ZREs, but usually somewhat less expensive. I have sizes anywhere from 48" to 52" overall length. Which one iI use depends on which of several different canoes I am racing or training in, anything from a solo Placid Boat Shadow, to a 28' or 34' voyageur. An inch different does make a difference in efficiency. Most often I am the bow paddler in a C2, C4, or voyageur, and my normal marathon race cadence for my team to follow is generally around 60-65 spm, with occasional sprint bursts of up to 80 spm. To break the all day boredom and get the blood moving on long stretches of the Yukon River (or otherwise to catch and pass a competitor), we will sprint at 80+ spm for two full minutes on a side for several hut rotations, then slow to normal rest pace for a couple of rotations, repeat.

Just a few comments. Pic shows two of my highest use straight shafts. For cadence you want the shortest length possible; inertia is proportional to the fourth power of length so if you add 10% to length you increase swing weight by over 40%. It is surprising how easily you can feel the effect of just 1/2 inch of paddle length. I'm six feet and both paddles in the pic are just under 54 inches with blade area around 110 sq in. I kneel and switch sides going upstream and my normal cadence is around 40-45 strokes/min, I do not like the feeling of a race cadence for cruising. The relatively short/fat blades help with cadence but still give plenty of power with each stroke and work great for J-stroking or freestyle as well as cruising. The balance of the paddle also affects cadence...the Black Bart Troublemaker with wood grip has a balance points two inches closer to the grip and the paddle feels two inches shorter than the Werner and it takes noticably less effort to use it even though it is slightly heavier. The Black Bart is much quieter than the Werner and I think it's because the blade is thinner and more gently contoured plus it's quiet if you apply a lot of power even before the blade is fully buried and I assume it's because the throat area is so gently contoured vs the relatively crude Werner.

Gumpus, that Black Bart label struck me as very familiar. I alao have a 52" Black Bart paddle that has taken me on many Adirondack 90 mile races and was the first paddle I used on the Yukon River races in a voyageur canoe. I ordered my paddle from Black Bart ( Bud Moll) and heard that he was killed when he struck a bear on nis motorcycle within a week or two after I received the paddle. I may have the very last paddle that he ever made.

yknpdlr said:

Gumpus, that Black Bart label struck me as very familiar. I alao have a 52" Black Bart paddle that has taken me on many Adirondack 90 mile races and was the first paddle I used on the Yukon River races in a voyageur canoe. I ordered my paddle from Black Bart ( Bud Moll) and heard that he was killed when he struck a bear on nis motorcycle within a week or two after I received the paddle. I may have the very last paddle that he ever made.
View attachment 142950View attachment 142951

Click to expand...

Bud Moll was a great guy...a gentleman and a craftsman. I think his paddles are sturdier than most carbon paddles and may have better balance since the shafts are so substantial. I bought a long Black Bart bent shaft from a friend that looked like the handle had been in a garbage disposal and cut the handle off and put a Zaveral grip on and now it's the paddle I use most often in my Advantage. When you see inside a Black Bart the thickness of the lay-up is surprising and makes me curious to know how he built his paddles. I also have one of his bent shafts with his larger blade and I think those might be kind of rare.

Thanks for the discussion! I'm not quite convinced that a carbon paddle is for me - and it's outside the budget ATM anyway - but I do appreciate the feedback.

@gumpus Good point about length and balance affecting the rotational inertia. What balance point do you prefer? I personally (so far) prefer to be balanced right at my lower grip hand or just a hair below. I also prefer a fairly chunky grip section at that point. I have fairly small hands - 7" from wrist to fingertip - but my current favorite grip is an oval about 1 1/8" X 1 1/2" ish.

I almost think that the ideal balance would be related to your target cadence - think the natural period of a pendulum.

(On the subject of cadence, I don't really have a target cadence, though some of the numbers listed for race/marathoning seem rather high compared to what I would probably reach.)

@Steve in Idaho What is the "String Method"? I've tried searching for it, and I only get a few math posts that assume that you already know what it is, or dead links.

Been a bit of a challenge to get any shop time, but I was able to do a bit on Saturday. Not in the mood to take a ton of pictures along the way, but this is where the bent-shaft has gotten to:



I worked the shaft down approximately to what I want for the low-hand grip. The blade has been fined out - Flat power face, tapered on the back. Titebond III, and I will be sealing over it. Perhaps some mechanical backup fasteners, IDK. The shaft length is overlength, and I'll fine-tune the length when I can handle the whole thing as a unit.

sailsman63 said:

@Steve in Idaho What is the "String Method"? I've tried searching for it, and I only get a few math posts that assume that you already know what it is, or dead links.

Click to expand...

When you have a shape that defies normal measurement you can take a string and conform it to the circumference and cut off the excess. Then you take that string and use its remaining length to describe a rectangle, and then it's a simple LxW measurement.

Steve in Idaho said:

When you have a shape that defies normal measurement you can take a string and conform it to the circumference and cut off the excess. Then you take that string and use its remaining length to describe a rectangle, and then it's a simple LxW measurement.

Click to expand...

While you can certainly determine the circumference/perimeter this way ... however, for determining area, it doesn't even work well for rectangular shapes and it only gets worse if you apply it to irregular shapes. That doesn't even consider the stretch string adds to the equation.

As an example, if you determine your perimeter to be 40 inches:

then a square (10 x 10) area is 100 square inches
a rectangle (14 x 6) area is 84 square inches

and if you apply that 40 inch circumference to a circle, the diameter = 12.7" and the area is 127 square inches

Trying to use the perimeter/circumference measurement to determine area isn't a viable method IMO ....

Brian

Cruiser said:

While you can certainly determine the circumference/perimeter this way ... however, for determining area, it doesn't even work well for rectangular shapes and it only gets worse if you apply it to irregular shapes. That doesn't even consider the stretch string adds to the equation.

As an example, if you determine your perimeter to be 40 inches:

then a square (10 x 10) area is 100 square inches
a rectangle (14 x 6) area is 84 square inches

and if you apply that 40 inch circumference to a circle, the diameter = 12.7" and the area is 127 square inches

Trying to use the perimeter/circumference measurement to determine area isn't a viable method IMO ....

Brian

Click to expand...

A 40 inch perimeter rectangle of 1x1x19x19 would be 19 square inches. Your post was an eye opener to me, Cruiser, as I had blindly accepted the validity of the string method.

You

Cruiser said:

While you can certainly determine the circumference/perimeter this way ... however, for determining area, it doesn't even work well for rectangular shapes and it only gets worse if you apply it to irregular shapes. That doesn't even consider the stretch string adds to the equation.

As an example, if you determine your perimeter to be 40 inches:

then a square (10 x 10) area is 100 square inches
a rectangle (14 x 6) area is 84 square inches

and if you apply that 40 inch circumference to a circle, the diameter = 12.7" and the area is 127 square inches

Trying to use the perimeter/circumference measurement to determine area isn't a viable method IMO ....

Brian

Click to expand...

You are so correct. Thank you. Where did I get that idea? Must've been the Internet....

How would you describe the shape of a ZRE canoe paddle? Roughly a parabola? In that case (using a parabola area calculator, thank you very much), I get approximately 64 sq".

Idunno. Blind luck, I guess.

Without gridding and counting squares and partial squares, that's all I got.

Steve in Idaho said:

You


You are so correct. Thank you. Where did I get that idea? Must've been the Internet....

How would you describe the shape of a ZRE canoe paddle? Roughly a parabola? In that case (using a parabola area calculator, thank you very much), I get approximately 64 sq".

Idunno. Blind luck, I guess.

Without gridding and counting squares and partial squares, that's all I got.

Click to expand...

Like I said in an earlier post, the easiest way I have found to determine the area for an odd shape ... such as paddles, is to just take a piece of paper that is big enough to draw the shape on.
1. Measure the length/width to get the area of that piece, and then fold the paper up and weigh it
2. Draw the blade shape and cut it out
3 fold the cut out and weight it

So as an example, you have a rectangular paper piece that is 10" x 36" and it weighs 2 oz
The area is 360 square inches and the weigh/squareInch is 2 /360 or .00555 oz/squareInch

Your cutout blade shape weighs .56 oz .. the area is .56/.000555 = 100.9 squareInches

This is all predicated on the fact that paper usually has a very uniform thickness and composition. If you have a stack of the same paper, you just measure once to get that weight per square inch, then you can easily determine the area of any shape pretty fast and easy.


Brian