Sports Technology

ISSN: 1934-6182 (Print) 1934-6190 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtec20

Comparison of blade designs in paddle sports

Alastair Campbell Ritchie & Mohammad Faizal Bin Selamat

To cite this article: Alastair Campbell Ritchie & Mohammad Faizal Bin Selamat (2010)
Comparison of blade designs in paddle sports, Sports Technology, 3:2, 141-149

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19346182.2010.538400

Published online: 06 Feb 2011.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 76

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtec20

Download by: [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] Date: 05 March 2016, At: 11:13
 Sports Technology, May 2010; 3(2): 141–149

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Comparison of blade designs in paddle sports

ALASTAIR CAMPBELL RITCHIE1 & MOHAMMAD FAIZAL BIN SELAMAT2

1
University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK and 2Nanyang Technological University, Nanyang, Singapore

(Received 10 August 2010; accepted 2 November 2010)

Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 11:13 05 March 2016

Abstract
The design of paddles used in canoe racing has been the subject of considerable research, with specialised designs for flat
water racing (canoe sprint), surf and white water canoeing. The paddles used in Asian boat racing remain much closer to
traditional designs. To examine the effect of this development, the pressure distribution and coefficient of drag for canoe
paddle blades are compared to the paddle designs used in Asian boat races. The pressure distribution on the face of the
paddle was examined using computational fluid dynamics (CFD), and drag forces and the coefficient of drag were examined
experimentally in a water tunnel. The results show that although the CFD predicts considerable variation in performance,
experimental testing showed much lower variation in the performance of the paddles. The results show that the modern
macon type paddle would be easiest to control, and the leaf shaped paddle used in snakeboat racing would have the highest
coefficient of drag.

Keywords: Canoe, dragon boat, paddle, modelling, drag

of both boats and paddles, provided that these

Introduction
While the design of oars and paddles used in Olympic
watersports has been a story of continuous develop-
ment (Ritchie, 2008), the designs of paddles used in
Asian paddle sports, pre-dating the modern Olympic
movement, have remained closer to their traditional
shapes. The objective of this study is to compare the
efficiency and fluid dynamics of the paddle designs
used in modern canoeing with the traditional
paddling sports of Asia, such as dragon boat racing,
of Chinese origin, and chundan, or snake-boat
racing, from Kerala in Southwest India.
Canoe sprint racing at the Olympics is conducted
on flat water (usually at the same venue as the rowing
regatta) over distances of 500 and 1000 m. Boat
classes include the men’s Canadian canoe classes, C1
and C2, where a single bladed paddle is used, and the
men’s and women’s kayak classes, K1, K2 and K4,
where a double headed kayak paddle is used.
The International Canoe Federation (ICF) specifies
a minimum weight and maximum length for each
boat type, but allows considerable flexibility in design
designs are available to all competitors (International
Canoe Federation, 2009). Paddles used in C2 canoe
sprint are rectangular and flat, rather than spoon
shaped, as shown in Figure 1a.
In contrast, dragon boat paddles have a single
specified design for competition use, as given by
Spec. 202a of the International Dragon Boat
Federation (IDBF) (International Dragon Boat
Federation, 2008). The dragon boat paddle has a
conventional handle and a trapezoidal blade. There
are no restrictions on the material used, but no
variation in the blade geometry is allowed, although
the handle length may vary between 112 and 130 cm.
Similarly, dragon boats are built to prescribed
designs (Standard Model 1222 for 22 paddlers and
small model 912 for 12) by builders licensed by the
IDBF. Crews in dragon boat racing are therefore
restricted in their choice of equipment, and
technology has less influence on the result of a
competition. At some regattas boats and paddles are
provided by the competition organizer: the rules
require at least two boats per racing lane at the venue

Correspondence: A. Campbell Ritchie, Department of Mechanical, Materials and Manufacturing Engineering, University of Nottingham, University Park,
Nottingham NG72RD. E-mail: alastair.campbellritchie@nottingham.ac.uk
ISSN 1934-6190 print/ISSN 2151-2221 online q 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/19346182.2010.538400
 142 A. Campbell Ritchie & M. F. B. Selamat
(International Dragon Boat Federation, 2008), but
some elite racers prefer to bring and use their own
paddles. A dragon boat crew is shown in Figure 1b.
Chundan racing is confined to the state of Kerala
in southwest India, and although there is enormous
local interest, particularly for the annual Nehru
Trophy (Figure 1c), there is no international
competition. It may be surmised that the size
and weight of the large boats used (over 100 rowers
and a boat 39 – 43 m long and weighing 8,000 kg;
Allapuzha District Administration, 2009), would
make the logistics of travelling to competitions
troublesome. Similar large boats, propelled by a
paddling action, are used in races and ceremonial
processions around Asia, one example being the
Royal Thai Barge procession on the Chao Praya river
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 11:13 05 March 2016
in Bangkok, Thailand: by Asian standards, even the
22 seat dragon boat is a “small” craft (International
Dragon Boat Federation, 2008).
Competition canoe and dragon boat paddles use
the latest composite materials technology, while
traditional paddles are made from wood and, in the
case of the chundan paddle, a single piece of wood
fashioned into a paddle. While there has been
considerable research into the fluid dynamics of oar
blades used in rowing, both computational (Caplan
& Gardner, 2007; Coppel, Gardner, Caplan, &
Hargreaves, 2008) and experimental (Barré &
Kobus, 2010), and some research into the perform-
ance of kayak paddles (Sumner, Sprigings, Bugg, &
Heseltine, 2003), to the authors’ knowledge, there
(a)
(c)
Figure 1. Paddling disciplines: (a) Men’s C2 sprint canoeing; (b) Dragon boat racing; (c) Chundan racing. Source: Images courtesy of (a) the
International Canoe Federation; (b) Singapore Dragon Boat Federation; (c) Ashit Desai.
is no previously published comparison between
canoe paddles and the various paddle designs used
in traditional Asian paddle sports.
Wind tunnel tests of bluff body drag around a flat
plate normal to the flow direction with zero pitch and
yaw angle give a CD of 1.17 for a finite plate and 1.98
for an infinite (two dimensional) plate (Hoerner,
1958). It should be noted that Hoerner’s data are for
a flat plate which does not span the width of the wind
tunnel, and hence is more relevant to this study than
data on two dimensional (semi-infinite) flat plate
drag. In wind tunnel tests, coefficients of drag of 1.65
to 1.75 were recorded for a variety of kayak paddle
blades (Sumner, Sprigings, Bugg, & Heseltine, 2003)
at zero pitch and yaw angles, conditions similar to the
water tunnel experiments described in this study.
Towing tank tests of blade designs used in Olympic
rowing, conditions more directly comparable to the
water tunnel testing in this study, gave coefficients of
drag between 1.7 and 2.3 (Barré & Kobus, 2010).
Paddle curvature had little influence on the
coefficient of drag at these conditions, although
spooned paddles maintained a higher coefficient of
drag as the pitch angle increases. It should be noted
that most traditional and Canadian canoe sprint
paddles are flat, rather than curved or spoon shaped,
as would be seen in white water and kayak paddles. In
this comparison, Froude numbers will be identical
for a given velocity, taking the model width as the
waterline length, L, in the formula Fr ¼ pVffiffiffiffi, and will
Lg
be in the order of 1 (for 0.1 m/s water speed) to 3.7
(b)

(0.37 m/s water speed) for the water tunnel
experiments. This compares to an expected Froude
number of 2.5 for the full scale paddle. It is expected
that the drag induced on the paddle will be
predominantly pressure, or form drag, rather than
skin friction or wave drag (Hoerner, 1958).
Methods
Four paddle blade designs were chosen: a modern
macon (tulip shaped) canoe paddle, as would be
used in recreational canoeing; the IDBF’s 202A
prescribed design (International Dragon Boat
Federation, 2008); a leaf shaped blade modelled on
those used in chundan (snake-boat) racing in Kerala,
India; and a rectangular paddle design, based on the
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 11:13 05 March 2016
paddles used in C1 and C2 canoe sprint (see
Figure 2). Dimensions of the blades studied are given
in Table I. Computational modelling was used to
analyse the pressure distribution on the paddle faces
and the flow around the paddles. It was found that
the computational model was unable to take into
account the formation of an air pocket behind the
paddle due to its position near the water surface, and
hence, drag forces and the coefficients of drag from
the modelling were not used (Selamat, 2009).
The software used in the computational modelling
was FLUENT for the processing and GAMBIT for
pre-processing (ANSYS, Inc., Canonsburg, PA).
To determine the comparative performance of the
various blade designs, scale models were constructed
and tested in a water tunnel (Figure 3), and the flow
patterns and drag forces were measured and used to
calculate the coefficient of drag.
Figure 2. Designs of paddles used in this comparison.
Table I. Dimensions of paddles studied in this research.
Paddle type Blade length (cm)
Dragon boat 48.00
Rectangular 48.30
Macon 49.00
Chundan 80.00
Comparison of blade designs 143
Computational fluid dynamics
The paddle blade is modelled as a solid obstruction in
a channel through which water flows, with solid wall
elements representing the blade surfaces. The models
were created using GAMBIT, which was also used to
generate the mesh before computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) analysis using FLUENT. In this
study, the paddles were modelled as flat plates,
surface relief, surface features and surface curvature
were not included – all the studied paddles, with the
exception of the macon paddle, are flat, and hence
this omission will only affect the results for the macon
paddle which is typically “spooned”. The dimensions
of the modelled water channel are shown in Figure 4.
The paddle was placed 100 mm from the water inlet,
as it was found that this was the minimum distance to
allow flow to develop before the obstruction for
accurate modelling. There is a distance of 1000 mm
behind the paddle to model the wake completely.
The paddle is given a nominal thickness of 3 mm.
Gaps of at least 100 mm are given between the paddle
edge and the boundary, with a similar gap of 100 mm
to the boundary at the bottom of the channel. A gap of
10 mm is used to the free surface at the top of the
channel to simulate shallow immersion of the paddle.
The fluid domain was meshed using quadrilateral
mesh elements and a hexahedral volume mesh. Due
to variations in the geometry of the paddles, the
paddle surfaces were meshed with quadrilateral and
triangular mesh elements, with the volume meshed
with tetrahedral and hexahedral elements.
Flow into the channel was modelled as a uniform
velocity, while the channel outlet was modelled as
Max width (cm) Area (cm2) Aspect ratio
18.00 705 2.67
16.00 709 3.02
20.00 980 2.45
12.00 692 6.67
 144 A. Campbell Ritchie & M. F. B. Selamat
Figure 3. The water tunnel used in this research.
a pressure outlet (uniform static pressure). The sides
of the channel were modelled using GAMBIT’s
symmetry boundary condition (Coppel et al., 2008),
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 11:13 05 March 2016
effectively making the modelled paddle one of an
infinite array. The wall elements of the paddle used a
no-slip condition to set the water velocity at the
surface itself to zero. Flowing water was modelled as a
Newtonian fluid, using the properties for water within
the FLUENT materials database. Using the square
root of the area as the characteristic dimension of the
paddle for the calculation of Reynolds numbers, the
Reynolds number in the calculation was 2500.
Flow within the individual fluid elements was
resolved according to the Navier-stokes equations in
Cartesian co-ordinates by the FLUENT processor.
The solution converged after 30 iterations, and the
pressure distribution on the face of the paddle, flow
around the paddle, and the characteristics of the
wake were observed.
Water tunnel experiments
Scale models were tested in a custom-built water
tunnel located in the Water Tunnel Laboratory of the
School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,
Nanyang Technological University. The models were
mounted on a 3-component force-moment balance
Figure 4. Model of tank and paddle used for computational fluid dynamics (all units in mm).
(Lee, Wong, Srigarom, & Nguyen, 2005) positioned
downstream of the settling tank and a short distance
from a convergent channel to ensure that the flow
conditions around the model were uniform. For all
models, the tunnel was at least 10 times broader than
the maximum breadth of the model, and hence it can
be safely concluded that edge effects due to the water
tunnel walls were sufficiently distant from the test
model. The models were made at 1:4 scale from 1 mm
aluminium sheet. The force balance was able to
measure forces 0– 2 N, to an accuracy of ^ 0.001 N,
and to minimize error, the force balance was
calibrated prior to each experiment and all exper-
iments were repeated five times for each flow rate.
The models were mounted in the force balance,
after which the system was calibrated. The flow was
then started and the pump was run for two minutes
to achieve steady-state conditions before any read-
ings were taken. The drag force and moment on the
model was measured for water velocities of 0.1, 0.18,
0.28 and 0.37 ms-1. All experiments were repeated
five times, with recalibration between runs.
Results
Computational modelling
The flow profile in Figure 5 shows the velocity
magnitude profile around the paddle as predicted by
the CFD model. It should be noted that the model
has the paddle acting as an obstruction in a steady
flow with mean velocity (VZ) of 0.5 ms-1, analogous
to the situation at the end of the stroke. The
symmetry condition at the edges of the model “tank”
imply that the paddle blade is one of an infinite array
of paddles, leading to the velocity at the edge of the
paddle being higher than would be the case in reality,
but as this condition was used to model all paddle
types, the comparison will remain valid. The model
shows a stagnation region at the face of the blade, and
 Comparison of blade designs 145

recirculation behind it, with the creation of a wake where P is the static pressure, P0 is the total pressure, r
behind the paddle. The mean velocity going past the is the fluid density and v is the fluid velocity. The static
paddle is as would be expected from continuity pressure is therefore highest at the stagnation point,
considerations. It should be noted that the velocity and reduced pressures indicate areas where the flow
plot in Figure 5 shows magnitude, not the velocity around the blade is faster (Massey, 2006).
vectors. From the figures, the macon profile has the largest
Figure 6 shows the static pressure contours on the maximum pressure area, and that this area of
face of the paddle calculated for the four paddle maximum pressure is closest to the shaft for this
designs. The static pressure is calculated according to paddle shape. This will correspond to ease of use, as
the relation: the turning moment on the paddle for a given motive
force will be lowest for this paddle shape. The effect
1 of the turning moment is illustrated in Figure 7.
P þ rv 2 ¼ P 0 ð1Þ
2 The force exerted by the upper hand will increase,

1.36e+00
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 11:13 05 March 2016

1.29e+00
1.22e+00
1.15e+00
1.09e+00
1.02e+00
9.50e–01
8.82e–01
8.14e–01
7.47e–01
6.79e–01
6.11e–01
5.43e–01
4.75e–01
4.07e–01
3.39e–01
2.71e–01
2.04e–01
Z Y
1.36e–01
6.79e–01
0.00e+00 X Y
X Z

Figure 5. Velocity profile around macon paddle for mean fluid velocity of 0.5 ms-1.

Figure 6. Pressure distribution on faces of blades studied for mean fluid velocity of 0.5 ms-1.
 146 A. Campbell Ritchie & M. F. B. Selamat

in the chundan paddle, implying that this paddle will

have a higher turning moment when in use.

Water tunnel experiments

Figure 8 shows the variation in drag force with
increasing water velocity for the four paddle blade
designs, plotted against a theory line giving the drag
force calculated from the drag coefficient, CD:

rAv 2 C D
F¼ ð2Þ
2

Where F is the drag force, A is the cross-sectional area

of the obstruction, v is the mean fluid velocity, r is the
Figure 7. Force balance for paddling action. fluid density and CD is the coefficient of drag. In this
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 11:13 05 March 2016

analysis, the paddle is considered as a bluff body,

to balance the increased turning moment due to the
water pressure on the blade. As the upper hand has to
reach across the body, this is a weaker position than
the lower hand, and hence the paddle will feel harder
to handle.
The dragon boat paddle and the rectangular
paddle have very similar pressure profiles, due to
their similar shapes. The trapezoidal shape of the
dragon boat paddle will move the centre of pressure
further from the point of attachment to the shaft,
leading to an increase in the bending moment at this
point, and a greater turning moment on the handle.
The chundan paddle has the lowest drag factor, and
hence has the lowest peak pressure. Of these designs,
the centre of pressure is furthest from the handle
hence skin-friction drag is treated as negligible in
comparison to the pressure drag due to the formation
of a wake. While the drag force is dependent on the
square of the velocity, CD varies with the fluid
velocity, as shown in Figure 9, a finding consistent
with the literature (Massey, 2006). The mean
coefficients of drag, as calculated from the best fit
theory lines, are given in Table II. The graphs show
considerably less variability than would be expected
from the CFD modelling, which may in part be due
to the presence of the air/water interface at the
surface of the tank, which is not accounted for by the
CFD modelling. As can be seen from the values in
Table II, the rectangular, macon and chundan
paddles all out-performed the dragon boat paddle

(a) (b)
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
Drag force (N)

0.5 0.5
Drag force (N)

0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Mean water velocity (m/s) Mean water velocity (m/s)
(c) (d)
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
Drag force (N)
Drag force (N)

0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Mean water velocity (m/s) Mean water velocity (m/s)

Figure 8. Variation in drag force with water velocity. Solid line – experimental data; dashed line – best fit theory line for constant coefficient
of drag. (a) Dragon boat; (b) Rectangular paddle; (c) Macon paddle; (d) Chundan paddle.
 Comparison of blade designs 147

5.0

Chundan
Dragon boat
4.0 Rectangular
Macon

Coefficient of drag
3.0

2.0

1.0
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 11:13 05 March 2016

0.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Reynolds number

Figure 9. Variation in CD with Re for the four paddle designs studied.

Table II. Drag factors calculated from water tunnel tests.

Paddle type Dragon boat Rectangular Macon Chundan

Coefficient of drag (experiment) 0.9671 2.200 2.036 2.332

Drag force at 0.5 ms (extrapolated for full size paddle) 7.74 N (13.57 N)2 17.60 N 16.29 N 18.66 N
Peak Pressure (modelling) 601 N/m2 658 N/m2 734 N/m2 457 N/m2
Position of centre of pressure (proportion of total paddle length) 0.57 0.49 0.44 0.70
Distance from handle attachment 0.28 m 0.24 m 0.18 m 0.60 m
1
Final data point corresponds to drag factor of 1.70. 2 Figure in brackets corresponds to drag factor of 1.70 from final data point.

by a considerably higher margin than would be
expected from the CFD modelling. The results from
the water tunnel confirm that the rectangular design
used in competition C1, C2, and C4 canoe
competitions is the most effective paddle, in terms
of form drag.
Discussion
The biggest surprise to come from this study was the
lack of correlation between the CFD modelling and
the experimental results. In addition to the coeffi-
cients of drag being very high, the modelling also did
not predict the relative performance of the paddle
designs. While there are a number of possible
explanations for these discrepancies, the most likely
explanation is the presence of a phase boundary in
the water tunnel – the surface of the water means
that an air pocket can form behind the paddle –
reducing the suction effect of the wake (see
Figure 10). This phenomenon is most marked for
broad paddles, with a low depth to width ratio, and
hence has the greatest effect on the dragon boat and
macon paddles. The chundan paddle, on the other
hand, has the highest depth to width ratio, and so it
may be expected that the effect of the air pocket
behind the paddle will be lowest in this design.
The effect of this air pocket on the drag factor can be
likened to the effect of a transom stern on a boat or
ship, increasing the apparent length of the object and
hence reducing the effect of form drag. In addition,
the depth of the paddle will add to the hydrostatic
pressure on the face of the blade, increasing the
driving force.
The drag factors calculated from the water tunnel
results are similar to those reported by Sumner et al.
(2003), who reported drag factors in the region of
1.68, independent of Reynolds number, for canoe
paddles tested in a wind tunnel. The variability of the
drag factors seen in this study may indicate that there
are more factors affecting drag in two phase flow,
such as wave drag, in addition to the form drag
predicted from the Reynolds number. The results
also accord with the observations of Hoerner (1958),
with a higher drag factor than would be expected for
a disc perpendicular to the flow direction.
In Canadian canoeing, the paddlers use a kneeling
position, to maximise the stroke length. In dragon
 148 A. Campbell Ritchie & M. F. B. Selamat
Figure 10. Effect of two phase flow on form drag.
boating and chundan racing, the paddlers are seated,
and typically use a shorter stroke with a higher
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 11:13 05 March 2016
cadence. The lower drag of the dragon boat paddle
compared to the C1 paddle will allow this higher
cadence to be maintained for a longer period of time,
as the dragon boat is considerably slower – an
international standard men’s C2 will cover 1000 m in
3:35 – 3:40 (International Canoe Federation, 2010)
– while the winning men’s dragon boat (22 crew) at
the 2009 world championships recorded a time of
4:04.33 for 1000 m (International Dragon Boat
Federation, 2009). Boat speed comparisons between
the chundan races and other boat classes are more
difficult, as the chundan events are carried out on
lakes and rivers in Kerala, rather than on inter-
national standard rowing courses, as is the case
for canoe sprint and dragon boat championships.
The winning time of the 2009 Nehru trophy, 4:54.22
over a 1400 m course translates to a time of
approximately 3:30 for 1000 m (Allapuzha District
Administration, 2009), making the large chundan
the fastest boat type in this study.
The design of the paddle blades is also indicative of
the size of the boat. Where a canoeist is catching into
water that is effectively stationary with respect to the
boat, paddlers toward the stern of a dragon boat will
be catching into the boundary layer of water that has
been set in motion by the boat – as well as water
disturbed by the paddlers in front of them – hence
the paddlers at the front of the boat feel considerably
more resistance than those at the rear. This is even
more the case for the chundan, which is a longer and
faster boat, and hence the long, narrow paddle shape
may offer the best overall performance, with the
narrowness of the blade making it easier to handle in
the disturbed water towards the stern of the craft.
The shape of the chundan paddle may also be
influenced by the origin of the snakeboat as a
warship, where a long, narrow paddle would also be
suitable for fending off an enemy vessel.
The computational analysis and experimental
testing were carried out under steady-state con-
ditions, which is not the most realistic comparison,
as the power stroke of the paddle is periodic.
However, the analysis does show that the traditional
paddle shapes, which have withstood the test of time,
are still effective means of propulsion for a paddled
craft.
The ease of paddling, and the “feel” of the paddle,
is highly subjective: how rapidly the resistance to the
motion of the blade increases at the beginning of the
stroke, the ease with which the paddle can be
controlled, and self-correction of the blade angle, are
among many factors. This study is able to shed light
on two major factors contributing to the “feel” of the
paddle: the first is the position of the centre of
pressure, and hence the turning moment felt by the
paddler, giving a sense of the ease or difficulty of
control; the second is the relative motion of the
paddle to the boat, its apparent velocity to the
paddler, and hence the “heaviness” of the paddle in
the water. The moment is minimized in the macon
paddle and at a maximum in the chundan paddle.
Because of the length and speed of the chundan, this
moment is an inevitable consequence of the length of
the paddle to be effective. In static water, as would
occur at the start of a race, the chundan paddle and
the Canadian paddle will have the heaviest feel, due
to their high CD, while the dragon boat paddle will
feel lightest as it has the lowest CD.
Conclusion
In flat water, the leaf shaped chundan paddle will have
the highest coefficient of drag and the lowest speed
through the water for a given force. The flat, rectangular
Canadian canoe paddle has a very similar, but slightly
lower coefficient of drag – while the dragon boat paddle
has the lowest coefficient of drag – although the results
show that it performs best at higher speeds through the
water. This leads to the conclusion that the chundan
and dragon boat paddles have the shapes that they have
because these would be most effective for the particular
boat type. There is an interesting correlation between
drag coefficients and boat speeds, since the paddles
used in the fastest boat types have the highest

coefficients of drag while the paddle used in the slowest
boat has the lowest coefficient of drag. This implies that
to a paddler, the speed of the paddle relative to the boat
hull will be similar for the Canadian canoe, chundan
and dragon boat.
The ease of control and “feel” of the paddle will be
more subjective, but the relative speed of the paddle
to the boat, and not to the water, implies that the
dragon boat paddle has a lower coefficient of drag,
and hence a faster speed through the water for a given
force, to allow the crew to maintain a higher cadence
than would otherwise be possible. It can therefore be
argued that the traditional paddles have evolved over
time to their current shapes, and are eminently
suitable for the craft that they propel.
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 11:13 05 March 2016
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Mr Chua Chor Lee,
of the Water Tunnel Laboratory of Nanyang
Technological University, for his assistance in this
research.
References
Alappuzha District Admin. (2009). Official website of Nehru Trophy
boat race. Govt. of Kerala & Nehru Trophy boat race society,
Alappuzha. Retrieved August 3, 2010, from http://nehrutrophy.
nic.in/
Barré, S., & Kobus, J. M. (2010). Comparison between common
models of forces on oar blades and forces measured by towing
tank tests. Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology, 224,
37–50.
Comparison of blade designs 149
Caplan, N., & Gardner, T. N. (2007). A fluid dynamic
investigation of the Big Blade and Macon oar blade designs in
rowing propulsion. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25, 643–650.
Coppel, A., Gardner, T., Caplan, N., & Hargreaves, D. (2008).
Numerical modelling of the flow around rowing oar blades.
The Engineering of Sport, 7, 353–361.
Hoerner, S. F. (1958). Fluid-dynamic drag: Practical information
on aerodynamic drag and hydrodynamic resistance (2nd ed.).
Midland Park, NJ: S. F. Hoerner.
International Canoe Federation. (2009). Canoe sprint competition
rules 2009. Lausanne: International Canoe Federation.
International Canoe Federation. (2010). 2010 ICF Canoe Sprint
World Cup Duisburg, Results. Retrieved from http://www.
kanuduisburg.de/erg_2010/Zeitpl_Start.php.
International Dragon Boat Federation. (2008). International
dragon boat federation handbook (4th ed.). Retrieved from
http://idbf. org/documents/watersafety/Boat&PadManufSche-
mes08.pdf..
International Dragon Boat Federation. (2009). 9th World Dragon
Boat Racing Championships, race results. Retrieved from http://
www.dragonboat2009.com/download/overall_results.pdf.
Lee, C. S., Wong, N. L., Srigarom, S., & Nguyen, N. T. (2005).
Development of 3-component force-moment balance for low
speed water tunnel. Modern Physics Letters B, 19, 1575–1578.
Massey, B. (2006). Mechanics of fluids (8th ed.). Abingdon:
Taylor and Francis.
Ritchie, A. C. (2008). Effect of oar design on the efficiency of
the rowing stroke. In F. K. Fuss, A. Subic, & S. Ujihashi (Eds.),
The impact of technology on sport II (pp. 509– 512). London:
Taylor and Francis.
Selamat, M. F. (2009). Sports engineering – Comparison of blade
designs in traditional paddle sports. (Final Year Project Disser-
tation, Nanyang Technological University).
Sumner, D., Sprigings, E. J., Bugg, J. D., & Heseltine, J. L. (2003).
Fluid forces on kayak paddle blades of different design.
Sports Engineering, 6, 11–20.