Saturday's weather prediction
Fordmeister
wind with heavy showers.
I am so glad I am too old to race, oh, woops, I am racing ! Its a
coxed 4 too
eeek
Carl Douglas
You'll feel a lot older afterwards!
C
Fordmeister
Could be worse. I could be sat in a tin fish for a couple of hours
marshalling 550 crews on the Tideway. A note of true THANKS to those
on RSR who are and the organisers of this great race
Richard du P
Sir, do not dissemble! Unless I'm greatly mistaken, I subbed you in
this morning - in response to a specific request from your club
secretary [thereby rendering your crew ineligible for a prize].
Stiffen the sinews! Summon up the blood ..........
Richard du P
Fordmeister
I don't think we will be breaking any record's or worrying those who
contemplate prizes when going feet wet ! Lets hope the weather men
have it wrong and we get to marshall from our beach.
David Biddulph
news:2a9bdc46-053d-4676...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> > Fordmeister wrote:
> > > Anybody else see the weather report for Saturday ? A gusting 30mph
> > > wind with heavy showers.
...
> Could be worse. I could be sat in a tin fish for a couple of hours
> marshalling 550 crews on the Tideway. A note of true THANKS to those
> on RSR who are and the organisers of this great race
24 mph gusting to 56 mph is the present best guess from the Met Office.
Hopefully it'll change between now and then.
Thank you for your sympathy for the tin fish brigade (especially those who
are going to be floating about just outside your boathouse!).
--
David Biddulph
Rowing web pages at
http://www.biddulph.org.uk/
Robert Treharne Jones
to capture all this misery!
Robert
On Nov 12, 8:48 pm, "David Biddulph" <groups [at] biddulph.org.uk>
wrote:
> "Fordmeister" <fordmeiste...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
MagnusBurbanks
conditions along Chiswick Ait and Hammersmith reach for crews trying
to get to the start from Putney. In which case I am reluctantly
bracing myself for a cancellation.
Magnus
Fordmeister
wrote:
Least we don't have far to go home if it is called off. Will have huge
sympathy for those who will also have to face a journey back down the
M3 or M4 on a Twickenham Rugby Day
bookie
wrote:
and I bet that if they do cancel they will wait until all 550 odd
crews are already on the water until they make that call (memories of
the mens head 2007 are coming back to me now, most unpleasant
experience that was).
personally I think they should make the decision tonight before people
start travelling tomorrow, particularly the distances some people have
to come, and certainly before people start to get on the water.
bookie
Fordmeister
The race is currently on. Cancellation remains a possibility and a
final decision will be taken at turn of tide tomorrow (12:30)
from the twitter site !
Carl Douglas
Which now informs us that the race is cancelled.
In sailing there's an adage to the effect that, while you can't control
the weather once afloat, you can choose the weather in which you decide
to go afloat.
With the current forecast & prevailing stormy conditions, cancellation
seems very wise. A rotten shame, though.
The frequency of strong storms seems unlikely to abate any time soon so
one wonders, in our small rowing world, at the wasted costs in overnight
accommodation, travel & time off work (for distant clubs), etc., & all
the other competitor & admin expenses for this event. If we used only
boats with a proven ability to safely survive swamping, perhaps this
event could have continued.
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Find: http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)
pdb
> URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk(boats) &www.aerowing.co.uk(riggers)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I agree in principle but would point out that a boat with low
freeboard, but not sunk, is at the mercy of the tidal flow and hazards
like Barnes Bridge, Chiswick Pier, the Black Buoy etc. The boat may
not sink but the inability to manouevre makes the risk unacceptable.
Carl Douglas
Please do us all a favour a& accept a reality check!
Dump, once & for all, that baseless & nonsensical myth that swamped
buoyant shells are un-steerable, un-manoeuvrable, or both!
It is simply false. It was a fabricated nonsense that was widely
peddled by those who, for reasons beyond imagining, didn't want rowing
shells to be intrinsically fully buoyant. A bogus & pathetically
irrational excuse for obstruction & inaction.
Do, please, get it straight. A swamped fully-buoyant shell remains, by
definition & by demonstration:
1. Rowable
2. Stable
3. Steerable
It is not at the mercy of the tidal flow. Nor is it more vulnerable
than any other shell to the hazards you named.
Have you really so swiftly forgotten that classic swamping-fiasco HoRR?
Don't you recall those moderately buoyant (but not to he full FISA
standard) eights, including that near-submerged Stampfli, being
successfully rowed all the way to the finish?
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Find: http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
bookie
> pdb wrote:
> > On Nov 14, 1:23 pm, Carl Douglas <c...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Which now informs us that the race is cancelled.
>
> >> In sailing there's an adage to the effect that, while you can't control
> >> the weather once afloat, you can choose the weather in which you decide
> >> to go afloat.
>
> >> With the current forecast & prevailing stormy conditions, cancellation
> >> seems very wise. A rotten shame, though.
>
> >> The frequency of strong storms seems unlikely to abate any time soon so
> >> one wonders, in our small rowing world, at the wasted costs in overnight
> >> accommodation, travel & time off work (for distant clubs), etc., & all
> >> the other competitor & admin expenses for this event. If we used only
> >> boats with a proven ability to safely survive swamping, perhaps this
> >> event could have continued.
>
> >> Carl
>
> >> --
> >> Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
> >> Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
> >> Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
> >> Find: http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
> >> Email: c...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
I am sure that peter is not actually arguing against having buoyant
boats, just that there is something else to contend with on the
tideway apart from swamping and sinking ie, the stream and the general
flow of the tide out and how well the majority of the crews (most of
whom do not regularly row on the tideway so have little or no idea
what can happen) will be able to cope with having less than normal
control on the direction their boat will be going in such windy
conditions. remember there are a couple of bridges and things along
the course which are not terribly forgiving should you find yourself
being carried onto one by a gust of wind
I am glad the organisers came to their senses eventually, and they did
so BEFORE people had boated (despite the chaps at furnivall trying to
get us to boat before the decision was going to be made at 12.30). I
just think that they should have made this decision last night and
before 2000+ rowers descended on west london just to stand around on
the bank and get soaked.
bookie
anyway at least the cancellation meant that I managed to get my car
out before my ticket ran out and i didn't get finedor clamped, and I
got home in time to catch the scotland-fiji match, so not all bad.
mruscoe
> I am glad the organisers came to their senses eventually, and they did
> so BEFORE people had boated (despite the chaps at furnivall trying to
> get us to boat before the decision was going to be made at 12.30).
I was standing directly outside Furnivall with senior people from the
club for about half an hour before the cancellation, and they were
waiting for the decision before getting anyone to actually go on the
water. However, there's very limited space to boat there, and they need
to follow a timetable in order to give everyone time to get up to the
start, and somebody there might have been keen to make sure that people
were queueing ready to boat.
Carl Douglas
May I stop you, right there?
What Peter wrote, with direct reference to swamped buoyant shells, was
exactly this:
"..a boat with low freeboard, but not sunk, is at the mercy of the tidal
flow and hazards like Barnes Bridge, Chiswick Pier, the Black Buoy etc.
The boat may not sink but the inability to manouevre makes the risk
unacceptable."
That statement is unfounded. It is fundamentally incorrect &
misleading. It tends to reinforce naive & ignorant prejudices, which
themselves discourage the implementation of rational equipment safety
measures. And that leaves rower exposed & vulnerable.
It is unacceptable for senior figures in our sport to offer such
erroneous accounts, mere boathouse whimsy, of the supposed consequences
of the swamping of fully-buoyant shells that have been built to the
internationally available & viable FISA flotation standard.
Rowing safety does not need fabricated fictions. It needs proven facts
& clear heads.
Rowing is an outdoor, all-weather sport rendered fundamentally less safe
by the irrational beliefs & prejudices of its administrators & by their
reluctance to mandate proven safety in its equipment. As a direct
result its events get regularly screwed up. How stupid is it that we'd
rather cancel events & endanger crews in training than mandate better
equipment? Single & double sculls, & pairs, don't & can't sink when it
gets rough - because they're built in the clear but unspoken recognition
that they will swamp & of the necessity that they remain fully buoyant.
So why do we put crews afloat in fours & eights which so easily swamp
& sink - & not even tell them this could happen?
And then we promote bogus reasons to justify this madness.
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Find: http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
pdb
> bookie wrote:
> > On 14 Nov, 15:02, Carl Douglas <c...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote:
> >> pdb wrote:
> >>> On Nov 14, 1:23 pm, Carl Douglas <c...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>> Which now informs us that the race is cancelled.
> >>>> In sailing there's an adage to the effect that, while you can't control
> >>>> the weather once afloat, you can choose the weather in which you decide
> >>>> to go afloat.
> >>>> With the current forecast & prevailing stormy conditions, cancellation
> >>>> seems very wise. A rotten shame, though.
> >>>> The frequency of strong storms seems unlikely to abate any time soon so
> >>>> one wonders, in our small rowing world, at the wasted costs in overnight
> >>>> accommodation, travel & time off work (for distant clubs), etc., & all
> >>>> the other competitor & admin expenses for this event. If we used only
> >>>> boats with a proven ability to safely survive swamping, perhaps this
> >>>> event could have continued.
> >>>> Carl
> >>>> --
> >>>> Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
> >>>> Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
> >>>> Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
> >>>> Find: http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
> >>>> Email: c...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
conditions but Emily is also right about my comments.
The facts are that any boat which gets into 'heavy water' loses
steerage, can get broadside and swept down by a fast tide onto an
obstruction. That is the risk which also have to be taken into account
and, btw, I was on duty during the 2007 HORR and had the onerous duty
of trying to stop a flotilla of frustrated crews racing down from
Chiswick Bridge towards Barnes where there was absolute mayhem. I had
also shepherded crews which were close to sinking to the bank and
safety before the race started.
I am not peddling bogus reasons for going out in unsafe boats, I have
probably experienced as many varied situations of heavy water as most
from my time at Greenwich and have learnt that when the conditions are
too rough then it is unsafe to put less experienced crews afloat, even
in the most buoyant boats on the market. As in driving on a motorway
in bad conditions, you can be as sensible as anyone but it is the
actions of the irresponsible others which are the greatest risk...
hence my comments above.
Carl Douglas
No! I am _not_ talking about a
"boat which takes minimum water in very rough conditions"
That is _not_ the definition of a fully buoyant shell. Nor does it
remotely describe many of the heavily swamped eights which, even so,
stayed afloat to complete that 2007 HoRR.
> The facts are that any boat which gets into 'heavy water' loses
> steerage, can get broadside and swept down by a fast tide onto an
> obstruction.
Those are not "the facts". Do you really not understand that a fully
buoyant eight might be carrying ~1/2 tonne of extra water, yet still
remain fully rowable, steerable, stable & be a safe platform for its
seated & rowing crew?
If what you've been saying here typifies what passes for a proper
"understanding" of what is meant by the term (a fully buoyant shell",
then the lack of education & understanding within rowing is even worse
than I had suspected! I am truly alarmed. Archimedes would have been
aghast.
That is the risk which also have to be taken into account
> and, btw, I was on duty during the 2007 HORR and had the onerous duty
> of trying to stop a flotilla of frustrated crews racing down from
> Chiswick Bridge towards Barnes where there was absolute mayhem. I had
> also shepherded crews which were close to sinking to the bank and
> safety before the race started.
With under-buoyant shells sinking on the racing line, crews trying to
avoid sinking by cutting into the sheltered sides where boats were
waiting to go up to the start & panicking crews rowing head on towards
racing crews, you have all the necessary ingredients for chaos. You
guys had an unenviable task; that no one seems to have been injured or
worse owes a lot to a fortunate conjunction of hard work & a huge dollop
of good luck. But none of those underbuoyant shells should have been
allowed afloat that day. There was plenty of warning & the event should
have been cancelled.
No one could possibly say they don't know what happens when
under-buoyant, as opposed to fully buoyant, shells hit rough conditions.
Yet those who know this, & those who over the years have started
events when conditions were foul - fully knowing what could happen &
what the worst scenario might be - still spread the conveniently
ignorant disinformation suggesting that fully buoyant shells would make
no difference. That beggars belief!
So now, please, try to imagine that every one of those eights in 2007
had been fully buoyant. What problems would there then have been? Each
might have taken on & retained copious amounts of water. Yet all would
have remained above water, level & fully rowable. They'd have gone a
bit slower, but boats go slower when there's a headwind & that's no problem.
The crucial thing is that there'd have been no sinkings, no boats
unsteerable & none drifting broadside in midstream. You'd have had a
fully viable &, dare I say it, a safe & enjoyable event.
>
> I am not peddling bogus reasons for going out in unsafe boats, I have
> probably experienced as many varied situations of heavy water as most
> from my time at Greenwich and have learnt that when the conditions are
> too rough then it is unsafe to put less experienced crews afloat, even
> in the most buoyant boats on the market.
At present there are very few boats which have been made testably fully
buoyant. I don't need to elaborate on why that's so, except to point to
the campaign against full mandatory buoyancy run by 6 Lower Mall.
As in driving on a motorway
> in bad conditions, you can be as sensible as anyone but it is the
> actions of the irresponsible others which are the greatest risk...
> hence my comments above.
You eliminate the irresponsible by banning from competition all boats
not shown to be fully buoyant. Conditions are only dangerous for the
adverse consequences they can generate. The only adverse consequence
was that the majority of boats could sink when swamped.
The arguments for doing nothing are as specious as those once advanced
for doing nothing about smog (sulphurous fumes & soot are part of life,
& good for you), smoking (only susceptible types will die, & you have to
die of something anyway) & drink driving (I can hold my drink, & a
couple for the road relaxes & makes me a safer driver).
Now, at last, we accept that chaos afloat is a bad idea & have a novel
readiness to cancel rather than face possible catastrophe. But, having
for so long argued that shell buoyancy would be an assault on our
manhood, we stand like rabbits in the headlamps, fearful to accept what
we have for so long rejected.
Are we really such headless chickens?
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
bookie
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
and there is also the issue of the 'potential hazards of travelling to
the event' (line stolen from the pangbourne sculls website explaining
their reasons for cancelling their racing today, which they sensibly
decided to do on thursday) with trailer loads of boats being blown
about on the M4 on their way to and from the tideway whilst the poor
sods who have been bullied into towing try to keep their precious
cargo from overturning on the motorway and causing a massive pile-up
in the process.
I could be wrong but i don't think boat buoyancy or lack of it could
be related to this issue, happy to be corrected though...
anyway, vote stacey
bookie
coach
volunteers) to police every boating point along the 6 miles of the
river and check all 550 boats to ensure that they met the minimum
standards. However, in the real World ,that is not going to happen and
thus the final responsiblity for the suitability of the boat must rest
with the crews and their clubs.
There were several leading crews containing GB athletes that, having
seen the conditions, realised that 1) the results would be a lucky dip
depending on where and when one would be hit by a squall and 2) the
risk of injury was too high. These guys were seen derigging and
loading their boats long before the event was finally cancelled.
In cancelling the event, not only were the conditions between
Hammersmith and the mile post considered. There were factors such as
the ability to safely marshall 550 crews near the start and the need
to ensure that some of the late starters would be able to return to up
river boat houses such as UL before it got dark.
Carl Douglas
>
> and there is also the issue of the 'potential hazards of travelling to
> the event' (line stolen from the pangbourne sculls website explaining
> their reasons for cancelling their racing today, which they sensibly
> decided to do on thursday) with trailer loads of boats being blown
> about on the M4 on their way to and from the tideway whilst the poor
> sods who have been bullied into towing try to keep their precious
> cargo from overturning on the motorway and causing a massive pile-up
> in the process.
> I could be wrong but i don't think boat buoyancy or lack of it could
> be related to this issue, happy to be corrected though...
>
And you'd be right ;) Towing safety is a wholly different matter,
involving a different set of considerations & good practice.
No one should be pressured into driving a trailer if they think it
unsafe or unwise to do so.
The proper safety kit for towing includes a towing stabiliser - an
anti-snake, anti-dive device available for a very modest outlay. You
don't see many of those in use, either.
> anyway, vote stacey
>
> bookie
Who the heck is that?
Cheers -
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Carl Douglas
> In a perfect World, the event would have have enough umpires (who are
> volunteers) to police every boating point along the 6 miles of the
> river and check all 550 boats to ensure that they met the minimum
> standards. However, in the real World ,that is not going to happen and
> thus the final responsiblity for the suitability of the boat must rest
> with the crews and their clubs.
>
But, unfortunately, no "minimum standards" exist. So what standard
would they apply?
And how might those officials, who also aren't fully equipped with
computer, hydrostatics software, equipment to measure & develop he full
3D hull form & incorporate the hull internals into that model, plus who
knows what else, & aren't trained for this job anyway, be able to
determine whether a given shell is fully buoyant or will float on a
level trim when swamped?
That's a job for professionals, not for guesswork. It could all have
been put in place years ago, with a proper certification procedure.
Then you'd only need to check the cetificates & look out for wear, tear
& abuse.
> There were several leading crews containing GB athletes that, having
> seen the conditions, realised that 1) the results would be a lucky dip
> depending on where and when one would be hit by a squall and 2) the
> risk of injury was too high. These guys were seen derigging and
> loading their boats long before the event was finally cancelled.
>
> In cancelling the event, not only were the conditions between
> Hammersmith and the mile post considered. There were factors such as
> the ability to safely marshall 550 crews near the start and the need
> to ensure that some of the late starters would be able to return to up
> river boat houses such as UL before it got dark.
>
With 100mph gusts being measured only 70 miles away, & truly vicious
gusts inland, it would always have been folly to hold the event or to
boat for it. The forecasters were never trying to kid anyone. The
point about today's weather was not just its severity but the speed at
which conditions changed.
Judging from the lateness of the actual cancellation announcement, one
gets the sense that there was a strong hope it would turn out "alright
on the night". But with a forecast like that, you should never be
trying to second guess conditions. Had the race been scheduled for a
few hours earlier, many might at that time have thought it safe to go
ahead & then, as the storm struck, have had several crews' underbuoyant
shells sink while rowing home.
coach
> would they apply?
>
> And how might those officials, who also aren't fully equipped with
> computer, hydrostatics software, equipment to measure & develop he full
> 3D hull form & incorporate the hull internals into that model, plus who
> knows what else, & aren't trained for this job anyway, be able to
> determine whether a given shell is fully buoyant or will float on a
> level trim when swamped?
>
> That's a job for professionals, not for guesswork. It could all have
> been put in place years ago, with a proper certification procedure.
> Then you'd only need to check the cetificates & look out for wear, tear
> & abuse.
>
I assume that any certificate would be attached to the boat,
indicating that it has been tested for a particular crew weight. What
happens when the boat is refurbished, altered or otherwise amended.
Are you then suggesting that every crew, when boating should present a
weight cerificate to control commission, so that their average weight
can be compared with that of the plated boat capacity.
Perhaps boats should come with a Plimsoll line to check that they are
not overloaded. We will need two of those as the density, and thus
floatation properties, will vary from salty tidal waters to fresh
mountain lake waters.
If a boat is to remain boyant under all circumstances, how many
seperate sealed compartments should there be? There was an accident on
the tideway recently where one crew hit another one broadside on
whilst travelling a race pace . One crew lost two feet of their bows,
which were left impaled in the side of the other boat, The hole in the
side of the other boat was located such that both the bow canvas and
bow underseat compartment were open to the river. Not supprisingly
both crews found that their boats were no longer fully boyant.
pdb
Perhaps the answer would be to build the boat and fill all of the
buoyancy compartments with expanded polystyrene foam to prevent any
water ingress. That would add some weight but since it would apply to
all craft then there would be no disadvatage.
wrt the older boats a similar approach could be adopted with buoyancy
bags inserted and then pumped full of foam.
Now I expect there will be reasons posted why this is not very
sensible but... perhaps Carl has a comment...
Carl Douglas
Richard -
Derision has a habit of blowing back in the face on a windy day, &
always forms a poor foundation for an argument.
The certificate would be attached to the boat. In the relatively
uncommon event that it was defaced or otherwise removed, there'd be
reasonable ways to get a duplicate - I do assume we're all sensible folk
of reasonable integrity?
A flotation certificate would indicate a maximum crew weight. If a crew
chose to ignore this, & things then went badly wrong, there'd be grounds
for salutary retribution against the club & survivors.
You reference to Plimsoll lines sadly echoes the facile arguments by
which Samuel Plimsoll's ship-owner detractors for so long blocked the
measure he proposed, meanwhile sending their crews to sea in ships which
were far too often overloaded deathtraps (& sacking & even imprisoning
those who would not sail). I don't think that was quite the cutting
point you were hoping to make?
As an engineer, and a good one I know, you will of course understand the
concepts of design tolerance & safety factors? These are implicit in
the setting, as with the FISA standard on flotation, of a given level of
immersion, not to be exceeded in a swamp test with the standard weight
of crew. The boat does not go below the waves for a few kilograms of
extra kit or flab.
And, if you know of any water of lesser density than the sort of stuff
you find in lakes & non-tidal rivers, then please tell me of it. So I
think you'll agree with me that a boat certified, as required, for fresh
water use will have a welcome reserve of buoyancy when used in salt water.
I'd heard about the accident to which you obliquely refer. I gather it
was nasty, with significant injuries to one rower's leg? How is the
victim now faring?
In the legal profession they like to say that hard cases make bad law.
It is good practice in marine design to subdivide flotation into
multiple sealed chambers - which the designer of RMS Titanic failed to
do, with horrendous consequences. But if you're saying that the
perforation occurred of both the bow compartment & bow's under-seat
compartment, that is truly unfortunate. It is also not something for
which full buoyancy was devised. Having a car drive off Hammersmith
Bridge onto your shell might also exceed the service conditions for
which its flotation (if any) was provided, but that would not invalidate
the concept of full buoyancy, just make a case for having stronger
barriers on the bridge.
Full buoyancy is not there to make shells "bullet proof". It's purpose
is to prevent a shell, swamped by waves in adverse conditions, from
sinking under its seated crew. It does, however, offer without cost a
string of additional safety & performance benefits, not the least being
a much reduced risk of sinking on penetration. Most perforation
incidents will hole only one compartment, & full buoyancy with separate
compartments then gives you every chance of staying afloat & getting
home. The accident to which you refer may well be an argument for a
number of safety measures (better bow protection being just one) but it
is not remotely an argument against full shell buoyancy.
One last point: until rowing takes its safety responsibilities more
seriously we will be left with stop-gap measures which may claim, yet
fail, to provide the protection we could so easily be having. Knowing
what we should deal with needs accident reports in an openly searchable
database, allowing analysis of incidents & collating of types &
frequencies of different sorts of injury, damage, etc. Thus, if we find
bows are too easily lost or burst open, we can consider remedies &
whether we wish/can afford to implement them in view of the recorded
consequences. Instead, in default of anything remotely like that, we're
left stumbling in the dark. Being dissatisfied when something not
intended for a given purpose fails to do what it wasn't designed for is
not just irrational, it's daft - like hoping knicker-elastic will also
hold false teeth in place....
Cheers -
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Find: http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
Carl Douglas
>
> Perhaps the answer would be to build the boat and fill all of the
> buoyancy compartments with expanded polystyrene foam to prevent any
> water ingress. That would add some weight but since it would apply to
> all craft then there would be no disadvatage.
>
> wrt the older boats a similar approach could be adopted with buoyancy
> bags inserted and then pumped full of foam.
>
> Now I expect there will be reasons posted why this is not very
> sensible but... perhaps Carl has a comment...
Peter -
It's a perfectly feasible operation, but expanded foams are denser than
you might like, so you'd be adding a fair bit of weight.
While extra weight might be acceptable, 100 litres of foam (what you'd
put under 2 slide-beds) might add at 5kg to the boat's weight. If you
wanted a truly bullet-proof boat you'd have to be able to support the
weight of boat plus crew which, for a four, might be ~400kg. Would you
be happy to carry 20kg of added foam (plus another 2kg for the foam
needed to support that foam) when that means adding almost 50% to the
weight of the boat?
Empty volume buoyancy is for now the simple, effective flotation option.
When we've agreed to properly implement that, then maybe some smart
person will have an acceptable way of dealing with the catastrophic kind
of collision to which Richard was referring.
My first choice would be to review the design & construction of that
bow. How can a supposedly protected bow inflict such traumatic damage?
Shouldn't this be raising some very serious questions? I've seen some
really crappy bits of bow construction on certain shells which would
explain the kind of injury that's been described to me.
Cheers -
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Find: http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
Henry Law
> ... What
> happens when the boat is refurbished, altered or otherwise amended.
>
...
> Perhaps boats should come with a Plimsoll line to check that they are
>
> If a boat is to remain boyant under all circumstances, how many
These are valid things to be considered when drawing up policy and
procedures. What worries me is that I infer from the "tone" of your
argument -- inasmuch as it can be inferred from text -- that you
consider the existence of such a list of things to be in itself an
argument against doing anything.
That would be wrong.
--
Henry Law Manchester, England