I don't believe in the universal applicability of lots of the textbook paddling technique mantras—e.g., vertical shaft, stacked hands, torso rotation, don't pry off gunwale. They may be useful idealizations for mental pedagogy about general canoe physics concepts, but in practice they can be uncomfortable to impossible to implement, depending on the paddler's torso length, torso girth, arm length, canoe width, canoe depth, paddle length, paddle blade shape, seating or kneeling position, seat height, and stroke rate. I'll probably write about each of these mantras in the future with illustrative pictures and videos.
Here, I would like to discuss the following textbook mantra ("Principle 1"): On the forward stroke, the last half of your stroke should be drawn parallel to the keel line rather than following the curve of the gunwale line, because following the gunwale line will be like a sweep stoke and hence cause more offside yaw than drawing parallel to the keel line. Mentally pictured, that can seem like a rational principle of canoe physics.
However, it "collides" with another textbook principle of canoe physics ("Principle 2"), the very one that supports the (supposed) benefit of a vertical shaft—namely, that the further the paddle is from the keel line on a forward stroke, the more it will increase offside yaw. This is because the further a forward stoke is from the keel line, the more it induces a sweep stroke-like turning force.
The "collision" of principles is that, if the last half of your forward stroke follows the curve of your gunwales, your paddle will get closer and closer to the keel line as the canoe beam narrows, and hence continuously decrease the yaw tendency under Principle 2, rather than supposedly increasing yaw tendency under Principle 1.
Which principle is correct? Many American experts advocate Principle 1. Rolf Kraiker believes in Principle 2. Feel free to opine and discuss.
My feeling is that Principle 2, following the gunwale line, is more correct assuming the paddler in both scenarios keeps the paddle blade perpendicular (90°) to the keel line. In order to do this, the gunwale follower will have to continuously rotate the blade pitch with a little more thumb-down top hand rotation, as the beam narrows, than the keel follower does. Of course, if either paddler rotates the pitch of the blade more than 90° from the keel line, then they both will begin to induce a yaw correction force that can go on to manifest itself as a J stroke, a Canadian (Knifing J, Guide) Stroke, or a palm-rolled Indian Stroke.
The further benefit to the gunwale following technique is that the paddle ends up at the ideal place to enhance all of these three correction strokes with a quick, thumb-down pry off the gunwale, perhaps with a little slide along the gunwale. In my opinion, using the gunwale as a fulcrum greatly reduces muscular energy correction effort when cruising long distances. And it's not just my opinion. I'll illustrate the benefits of the gunwale pry/slide via quotations and videos from recognized paddlers, beginning with Omer Stringer, in a future thread.
I suspect a lot of good paddlers will disagree with some or all of my analysis in this topic because they have been inculcated to believe more in Principle 1 than Principle 2. Have at it . . . if you're still awake!
Here, I would like to discuss the following textbook mantra ("Principle 1"): On the forward stroke, the last half of your stroke should be drawn parallel to the keel line rather than following the curve of the gunwale line, because following the gunwale line will be like a sweep stoke and hence cause more offside yaw than drawing parallel to the keel line. Mentally pictured, that can seem like a rational principle of canoe physics.
However, it "collides" with another textbook principle of canoe physics ("Principle 2"), the very one that supports the (supposed) benefit of a vertical shaft—namely, that the further the paddle is from the keel line on a forward stroke, the more it will increase offside yaw. This is because the further a forward stoke is from the keel line, the more it induces a sweep stroke-like turning force.
The "collision" of principles is that, if the last half of your forward stroke follows the curve of your gunwales, your paddle will get closer and closer to the keel line as the canoe beam narrows, and hence continuously decrease the yaw tendency under Principle 2, rather than supposedly increasing yaw tendency under Principle 1.
Which principle is correct? Many American experts advocate Principle 1. Rolf Kraiker believes in Principle 2. Feel free to opine and discuss.
My feeling is that Principle 2, following the gunwale line, is more correct assuming the paddler in both scenarios keeps the paddle blade perpendicular (90°) to the keel line. In order to do this, the gunwale follower will have to continuously rotate the blade pitch with a little more thumb-down top hand rotation, as the beam narrows, than the keel follower does. Of course, if either paddler rotates the pitch of the blade more than 90° from the keel line, then they both will begin to induce a yaw correction force that can go on to manifest itself as a J stroke, a Canadian (Knifing J, Guide) Stroke, or a palm-rolled Indian Stroke.
The further benefit to the gunwale following technique is that the paddle ends up at the ideal place to enhance all of these three correction strokes with a quick, thumb-down pry off the gunwale, perhaps with a little slide along the gunwale. In my opinion, using the gunwale as a fulcrum greatly reduces muscular energy correction effort when cruising long distances. And it's not just my opinion. I'll illustrate the benefits of the gunwale pry/slide via quotations and videos from recognized paddlers, beginning with Omer Stringer, in a future thread.
I suspect a lot of good paddlers will disagree with some or all of my analysis in this topic because they have been inculcated to believe more in Principle 1 than Principle 2. Have at it . . . if you're still awake!