Occasionally the New York Times runs out of stories on its core topics (e.g., “Can you believe the racism, sexism, and stupidity of Republican voters?”; “Let’s speculate on whether this attractive young woman got paid to have sex with a wealthy senior citizen and then got paid some more not to talk about it”; and “Hitler was right when he said that there is a secret committee that controls all world events, except that it isn’t Jews on this committee, but Russians”). The result this week is an article on a Polish guy who has crossed the Atlantic three times… by kayak.
Here’s the part that raises a burning question for me:
Kayaking is an absurd form of long-distance ocean travel. All the big muscles in the body are useless. … He intended to keep muscle tone in his legs by swimming, but he had to abort that plan because his body in the water attracted sharks.
If you’re going to be out in the ocean for 3+ months, why not adapt the Hobie MirageDrive pedal mechanism (introduced late 1997). Keep paddles, of course, for arm tone and in case the pedal drive fails, but why not at least start the trip with the capability of going as fast as possible with all of the body’s strongest muscles?
[The heroic journalist does not ask this question. Instead she wants to know about the 70-year-old’s feelings, his wife’s feelings, and their sons’ feelings. Maybe this is why it is extremely rare for engineers to become journalists?]
One comment from a reader:
I’ve seen the boats ocean rowers operate, they are so big that the operators are simply orienting them in prevailing currents and wind. They are essentially sail boats, albeit small ones without sails, but wind and water is driving the bus. So while these guys are on their own, and do cross oceans there is a little trickery about how it is accomplished. I’ll be impressed when it’s done like speed records on the salt flats- first in one direction then the reverse.
Regarding “extremely rare for engineers to become journalists,” there’s a general problem there, and it’s not just in print.
Partly it’s because reporters believe that all that matters to the audience is the people in the story (when it isn’t, not for the entire audience); partly, maybe dominantly so, is that a journalist can ask “feelings” questions about anything without any effort to learn about the actual story, while asking about kayaks requires some understanding of, well, kayaks, water, wind, fitness. Higher people-focus means less work learning and lower chance of being caught saying something wrong.
Take the documentary “Note by Note: The Making of Steinway L1037,” putatively about the making of that piano. In it there are several ‘human interest’ stories, including talking about life to the wife of one of the workers while she cooks, but no description of the piano key mechanism, no explanation of the design, the choice of wood, or what makes Steinway sound different from Bosendorfer. It might as well be furniture.
Now, one could argue that the general public prefers ‘human interest’ stories to details of pianos (just like average readers probably care little for kayaks and a lot for people). The small piano-loving audience would be better served by the missing details, but they’ll still watch, because it’s about pianos (and the readers who care about kayaks will read the ‘feelings-centric’ story), which makes the documentarian (or reporter) believe that it was a good choice to pick people over machines. And so it continues.
(On the other hand, dedicated people who have video-making skills have been making YouTube videos — hey, and writing blog posts! — that better match their niche audiences. And since they didn’t go to journalism school or film school, they didn’t “learn” that all that matters is people, so they actually make interesting videos and posts on what matters to their audience.)
Cheers,
J
The One Comment nailed it. It’s the same mechanism Thor Heyerdahl used to get across both the Atlantic and the Pacific in simple wooden rafts. Falling overboard was a major hazard, since there was no way to turn around and go back.
The guy did some remarkable things, among them going back in the kayak following a repair aboard a ship, after weeks in the cockpit and an honorable way to quit. These extreme voyagers are, well, extreme.
The reporter is not well informed. A proper kayak stroke uses no arms. Power, particularly any sustained power, comes through your core. A kayaker who is using arms is an easy tell that they are a beginner.
It is a torso twisting motion where your arms are almost straight the entire stroke. Your torso is twisting while your knees are wedged under the cockpit rim providing the stabilizing counterbalance to propel you forward. I would suggest it is actually more efficient and powerful than recumbent pedaling.
Not dissimilar to competitive cross country skate skiing. To the casual observer it looks like you’re using all arms and legs, but in reality you are slamming your poles into the ground with force and doing monster stomach crunches. Both activities really chisel up like a braided rope by the end of the season. I think we’d be impressed if they took a picture of this 70 year old guy without his shirt on.
From a strictly engineering point of view, it does seem like leg power would make a lot more sense.
Perhaps “kayak” makes a better headline than “pedal powered boat.”
Related story:
http://adventuresofgreg.com/blog/2010/09/22/pedal-the-ocean-expedition-canceled/
This doesn’t sound easy.
The kayaker wanted to be considered for a Guinness World Record. Maybe Guinness specifies that pedal mechanisms are disqualifying.
As an engineer I certainly would be interested in the efficiency of his approach, but given what he did I also want to know about his psyche.
I can’t even fathom (so to speak) being out in the ocean, thousands of miles from other humans, for months at a time. Heck, being 50 feet off the beach for 10 minutes without my feet touching bottom gives me a panic attack…
Just like that guy that walked to the South Pole. I simply can’t imagine that level of confidence, calm and robustness.