Strokes/minute strokes/mile

[JohnHuth]

I'm doing a survey on ways of estimating dead reckoning distances.

The word "mile" comes from the Latin "mille pacem" - one thousand paces. Roman soldiers would march and measure distances in units of one thousand paces. With a group of students, I've found that, on average, they have about 980 paces per mile, which is pretty consistent.

I would like to discover what people's paddling cadence is, and if they could come up with decent estimates of how many strokes per nautical mile they have.

One pace = each time the same foot (left or right) hits the ground - so, if you like, there are two "steps" per pace.

Same statement applies to strokes - each time your left arm strokes, that counts as "one".

If you know that, could you let me know, if you're paddling this summer and are willing to waste an hour or so counting strokes and distance made good, please let me know and I'll record it and report back the results.

Many thanks in advance!!

John H.

[jdkilroy]

I would like to discover what people's paddling cadence is, and if they could come up with decent estimates of how many strokes per nautical mile they have.

John H.

I would presume the best way to establish this number would be to set up some sort of measured mile (nautical mile?) on a lake and then paddle it on a calm day or to do the same on the sea but paddle it on a calm day at slack water.

I'll see about setting up a measured mile in the Portsmouth area John and others can apply themselves to it as conditions and timing allow.

Jon

[djlewis]

I'm doing a survey on ways of estimating dead reckoning distances.

The usual way for sea kayaks is to count the seconds it takes you to go one boat length and divide that into 10 to get knots... repeat in sequence for better accuracy. (1 kt = 100 feet/min ~= 6 boat lengths/min = 0.1 boat lengths/sec)

That's fairly rough, of course, though remarkably close. But I'll bet it's better than counting strokes, considering all the variables in strokes -- changing mechanics for sea state, wind, heading, body and combinations thereof. Plus, it's nice to vary various aspects of the stroke on a long paddle, and I'd hate to be bound to regularity just for the sake of measurement.

Also, both methods give you speed over water, not over ground, and between those are many steps and slips. But you knew that.

--David.

[JohnHuth]

Yes, I can give you some other info as it relates to changing conditions just on walking.

When I was on a backpacking trip last summer, I monitored our progress. With my brother-in-law in tow as the "rate limiting step" we did about 1.5 miles per hour. When it was just me and my nephews, we could do 3.5 miles per hour. At altitude, with packs, with brother-in-law, we did maybe 0.7 miles per hour. The pace cadence didn't vary as much as the overall speed did, which meant that the stride length varied.

I'm sure that one sees a similar effect when paddling - depending on conditions, who you're paddling with and that kind of thing.

Still, having some idea of cadence or average speed in different conditions could be very important for dead reckoning.

For now, I mean "by yourself, under flat, relatively wind free conditions" - sort of what you would find if you measured out a flat stretch of land and walked some distance at a brisk pace (but not a sprint).

Another reason for counting cadence is the following - with an estimation of speed alone, you need a watch to be able to keep track of distance made good. I'm thinking of a more primitive situation when you don't have a time-keeping device and knowing the cadence can also help keep track of time.

[Suz]

I'm doing a survey on ways of estimating dead reckoning distances.

The word "mile" comes from the Latin "mille pacem" - one thousand paces. Roman soldiers would march and measure distances in units of one thousand paces. With a group of students, I've found that, on average, they have about 980 paces per mile, which is pretty consistent.

I would like to discover what people's paddling cadence is, and if they could come up with decent estimates of how many strokes per nautical mile they have.

One pace = each time the same foot (left or right) hits the ground - so, if you like, there are two "steps" per pace.

Same statement applies to strokes - each time your left arm strokes, that counts as "one".

If you know that, could you let me know, if you're paddling this summer and are willing to waste an hour or so counting strokes and distance made good, please let me know and I'll record it and report back the results.

Many thanks in advance!!

John H.

Hey John,

"Whilst" on long ago training courses I have done just that exercise. Once in Cornwall and again in Skye. Your stroke rate is a very useful bit of information to know when you are paddling at night or in fog.

These numbers are based on about 10 people doing the same course quite a few times.

20 strokes ~ 100 meters ~ 1 min (at 6 km/hr)

45 strokes ~ 1/8 nm ~ 2.5 min (at 3 kts)

See Gordon Brown's book - Sea Kayak - page 98 for his explanation.

He suggests paddling for 2 minutes and counting your strokes (one side only as it gets too confusing) to come up with a number for yourself with your paddle/kayak. He states that "most people, irrespective of size, weight or strength find that the number of strokes on one side is between 25 and 30 per minute.

Suz

[Pintail]

I totally agree with Suzanne: this is an important and clever technique for navigation <in fog>, for one example...

David, how do you propose to count/estimate your boatlengths, when you are yourself sitting in said boat? I do not "get" it at all. I think counting strokes is a far better idea.

Another example is night-time paddling -- same question: how are you going to estimate your boatlengths <then>?

(Oh, I see Madam already mentioned both night-time and fog -- silly me!)

[djlewis]

I totally agree with Suzanne: this is an important and clever technique for navigation <in fog>, for one example...

David, how do you propose to count/estimate your boatlengths, when you are yourself sitting in said boat? I do not "get" it at all. I think counting strokes is a far better idea.

Another example is night-time paddling -- same question: how are you going to estimate your boatlengths <then>?

(Oh, I see Madam already mentioned both night-time and fog -- silly me!)

Well, within the -- rather large -- error margin of all these methods -- I think one develops a pretty good sense of how fast one is paddling (over water) under a variety of circumstances based on stroke mechanics, exertion level, conditions, etc (with wind being a complicating factor, as always).

It's probably a good idea to carry a gps for a while to calibrate that more accurately in natural conditions (rather than an artificial course which will probably distort what you do in the wild). While you are at it, you can count strokes while measuring distance with the gps. Hey, you could even try all these methods and report back. Always good to have several techniques.

Yes, checking boat lengths will be quite difficult in the dark, unless, of course, there's some bio-luminescence to use as an actual marker. As for doing it in the light, not so hard, I believe (see gps section below).

Finally, John, if I am without a timepiece, I am also without my PFD, as I have an inexpensive but very serviceable waterproof watch permanently mounted on a shoulder strap. I consider it important safety gear.

Of course, you can always use a GPS to make the actual measurements, in fog, at night, anywhere you can see the sky (so maybe not in sea caves). And when the unit fails in the middle of a paddle, you can toss it in the water (assuming it is naturally buoyant or you made it so) near the bow and count thousand-one, thousand-two, etc until it is off your stern, at which point you bid it adieu and divide into ten.

--David.

[Pintail]

<...Of course, you can always use a GPS to make the actual measurements...>

...if you possess GPS, which <of course>, not all of us do! I myself do not own a GPS unit, dear David! (There's an 'ole in my bucket, dear David, dear David, there's an 'ole in me bucket...but 'opefully not in me kayak!)

[djlewis]

<...Of course, you can always use a GPS to make the actual measurements...>

...if you possess GPS, which <of course>, not all of us do! I myself do not own a GPS unit, dear David! (There's an 'ole in my bucket, dear David, dear David, there's an 'ole in me bucket...but 'opefully not in me kayak!)

Ouch... ya got me!

[JohnHuth]

There is a possible problem with obsessive/compulsive disorder here. If you spend all your time on the water with your internal voice saying "one....two...three....four .....five....etc" while you're paddling, it's surely an issue. But, if you're doing that in dense fog or paddling at night, it'll make you feel a whole lot better.

[rick stoehrer]

There is a possible problem with obsessive/compulsive disorder here. If you spend all your time on the water with your internal voice saying "one....two...three....four .....five....etc" while you're paddling, it's surely an issue. But, if you're doing that in dense fog or paddling at night, it'll make you feel a whole lot better.

oh hell john if the only thing the voices in their heads chant are numbers i wouldn't be half as concerned.

[gyork]

I'm doing a survey on ways of estimating dead reckoning distances.

I would like to discover what people's paddling cadence is, and if they could come up with decent estimates of how many strokes per nautical mile they have.

Because I'm intrigued by primitive science, I did this Saturday on flat, freshwater.

1 Nm, 336 strokes, 15'30".

Gary

[ayong]

counting strokes has some Zen flavor to it...

Before my Garmin battery faded, I covered 0.19 miles in 100 strokes at a cadence of 70 (35 right + 35 left!) that would be about 525 strokes/mile...

I'll continue accumulatiing data for your project...your students must enjoy you...

Tom

[Albatross]

I'm doing a survey on ways of estimating dead reckoning distances.

The word "mile" comes from the Latin "mille pacem" - one thousand paces. Roman soldiers would march and measure distances in units of one thousand paces. With a group of students, I've found that, on average, they have about 980 paces per mile, which is pretty consistent.

I would like to discover what people's paddling cadence is, and if they could come up with decent estimates of how many strokes per nautical mile they have.

One pace = each time the same foot (left or right) hits the ground - so, if you like, there are two "steps" per pace.

Same statement applies to strokes - each time your left arm strokes, that counts as "one".

If you know that, could you let me know, if you're paddling this summer and are willing to waste an hour or so counting strokes and distance made good, please let me know and I'll record it and report back the results.

Many thanks in advance!!

John H.

Hi John, on flat water 432 strokes per mile I use my gps and in NZ we go by the metric measurements 100 metres I average 27 strokes on the right side so times 16 to get the mile.

thanks

Evan

[JohnHuth]

Thanks for the replies. I'm keeping a spreadsheet of the answers and will report back when I have some statistics.

I'm writing up the primitive navigation course into a book - his also includes the "weather and waves" talks I gave. I hope to have these available by mid-Fall or so.

[Doug]

Perhaps an added vital piece of information to note for later consideration will be the type of of paddle or blade used. A high angle Epic Mid-wing or Werner Ikelos will use less strokes (I believe) than a low angle blade such as a Werner Kaliste or Greenland Paddle.

[JohnHuth]

Perhaps an added vital piece of information to note for later consideration will be the type of of paddle or blade used. A high angle Epic Mid-wing or Werner Ikelos will use less strokes (I believe) than a low angle blade such as a Werner Kaliste or Greenland Paddle.

This may fall into the realm of also recording the number of strokes per minute. These are bit like the differences in the lengths of peoples' legs. But more information is always good!

[djlewis]

Perhaps an added vital piece of information to note for later consideration will be the type of of paddle or blade used. A high angle Epic Mid-wing or Werner Ikelos will use less strokes (I believe) than a low angle blade such as a Werner Kaliste or Greenland Paddle.

That doesn't seem at all obvious to me. In fact, it's way more complex than that.

[gyork]

... more information is always good!

1 Nm, 336 strokes, 15'30", Werner Kalliste 220cm, unfeathered, wingspan 6'4", Valley argonaut glass, blah, blah, blah...

[Pintail]

<Perhaps an added vital piece of information to note for later consideration will be the type of of paddle or blade used. A high angle Epic Mid-wing or Werner Ikelos will use less strokes (I believe) than a low angle blade such as a Werner Kaliste or Greenland Paddle>

I would say: poppycock! <At best> this technique of counting strokes is for rough estimation only. There is no way one can navigate in fog properly (without GPS), so what paddle you are using has no bearing (or interest) for anyone. I believe the (ever-wise) John is simply conducting an overall survey to gain some rough results.

Actually, I might go further and <really> throw the cat among the pigeons by stating that navigation in a kayak is always going to be rudimentary and imprecise -- it's the nature of the beast, isn't it?

[Doug]

<Perhaps an added vital piece of information to note for later consideration will be the type of of paddle or blade used. A high angle Epic Mid-wing or Werner Ikelos will use less strokes (I believe) than a low angle blade such as a Werner Kaliste or Greenland Paddle>

I would say: poppycock! <At best> this technique of counting strokes is for rough estimation only. There is no way one can navigate in fog properly (without GPS), so what paddle you are using has no bearing (or interest) for anyone. I believe the (ever-wise) John is simply conducting an overall survey to gain some rough results.

Actually, I might go further and <really> throw the cat among the pigeons by stating that navigation in a kayak is always going to be rudimentary and imprecise -- it's the nature of the beast, isn't it?

Your response does not surprise me. I believe you assume too much. Keep an open mind and you could learn something.

[JohnHuth]

417 strokes/statute mile

480 strokes/nautical mile

31 strokes/minute

4.46 mph

3.84 nm/hr

Over a 4 mile course, light quartering wind - 8 kts, 2 ft splashy waves. Not pushing or being lazy either.

I have weird taste in paddles - Werner Kalliste 205 cm - special order. Tempest Wilderness 170. I like the short paddles - faster turnover.

[subaruguru]

Perhaps an added vital piece of information to note for later consideration will be the type of of paddle or blade used. A high angle Epic Mid-wing or Werner Ikelos will use less strokes (I believe) than a low angle blade such as a Werner Kaliste or Greenland Paddle.

That's certainly my experience with both of these paddles: The large surface area of the Ikelos clearly requires a slower cadence for the same work performed; for the Epic MW I attribute the lower cadence to the extended stroke length automatically provided by the inverted "V" stroke shape. When I try the smaller Cyprus (smaller clone of the Ikelos) it's clear that cadence increases; easier on the joints in the spring too.

[scamlin]

<Perhaps an added vital piece of information to note for later consideration will be the type of of paddle or blade used. A high angle Epic Mid-wing or Werner Ikelos will use less strokes (I believe) than a low angle blade such as a Werner Kaliste or Greenland Paddle>

I would say: poppycock! <At best> this technique of counting strokes is for rough estimation only. There is no way one can navigate in fog properly (without GPS), so what paddle you are using has no bearing (or interest) for anyone. I believe the (ever-wise) John is simply conducting an overall survey to gain some rough results.

Actually, I might go further and <really> throw the cat among the pigeons by stating that navigation in a kayak is always going to be rudimentary and imprecise -- it's the nature of the beast, isn't it?

Christopher:

I usually admire your epistles for their grace and judgment--not to mention singular views--but I'm afraid this time you've steered off course.

Absolutes always run the risk of an inconvenient counterfactual. Consider: "There is no way one can navigate in fog properly (without GPS), ...." I suppose it all depends on how you define proper, but I think a basic definition would be to know where you are well enough to avoid hazards and arrive where you intend safely. If this definition suits you, then certainly there have been centuries of mariners who have done just that--without GPS--and many kayakers who do as well. Dead reckoning is a well-validated, robust method for navigation in fog and darkness. John's research and courses amply demonstrate many alternatives that meet this test--all without GPS.

Properly? "Proper" is such a freighted word, laden with judgment, wielding exclusion and oozing high authority. If you said "precisely," you might have a point, and it would nicely dovetail with your reference to "rough" results. I would argue, though, that excessive precision is not only unnecessary but may distract (for example, from paying attention to environmental clues and boat traffic).

Perhaps "precise" what you meant after all, but I'd hate to think you, of all people, hoist on your own petard of mere word choice.

Your steadfast admirer,

Scott

[EEL]

Having spent a few days wandering about in the fog off Stonington last week and similar experiences leads me to conclude I agree with Scott and Sir Christopher. Precise is rather hard without a GPS, but precision is seldom needed. In fact, you can often eyeball courses directly on the chart for short crossings between islands. While seldom used, folks I know who are often wandering about and make long crossings in fog make sure they have a GPS with the necessary waypoints for the journey just in case. It is seen as the last resort as opposed to a device by which they navigate.

FWIW, I find the most consistent sources of error in fog are failing to accurately predict the effect of current and stopping/drifting during a crossing. Wonder what others find to be common causes of errors.

It is quite amazing how fast one has no sense of direction in heavy fog and the failure to accept and follow the compass can lead to huge errors fast. I suspect Sir Christopher as a pilot is only too familiar with what happens to pilots trying to fly in IFR conditions without using their instruments. Which may explain his opinions on kayak navigation.

Ed Lawson

This way... no...that way...which way?