Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
bowball
354 views
Skip to first unread message
Mike De Petris
Jun 4, 2013, 2:09:20 PM6/4/13
to
SingleMinded
Jun 4, 2013, 2:26:45 PM6/4/13
to
Here's the account of the incident (much embellished by the student rumour-mill since then) that resulted in bow-balls coming into use in Britain, almost 50 years before Mr. Offredi's accident.
To be fair, I don't know how quickly or universally they were adopted- was it only for Bumps races, or did they become compulsory across the country?
Carl
Jun 4, 2013, 5:20:47 PM6/4/13
to
for show than actual function.
They are usually insecure, or perished, or the first couple of inches of
the bow breaks off. Whatever, the result is the same - the bow, broken
or otherwise, is rammed into or through someone.
Here's a club which takes river safety seriously:
http://tinyurl.com/kdvv48l
Then there's the 2007 accident on the Charles River, USA. A sculler was
impaled by an eight at the time of the HoC & it was a particularly nasty:
www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMcpc079004
The full article carries gruesome photos, but the information on that
page should be enough for most of us. That eight would have had a bow
ball - which was useless in the event! The sculler survived, saved by
expert & prompt surgery. but might not have lived some years earlier.
On the Tideway, UK, some 20-ish years ago 2 fours collided after dark,
piercing one crew-man through the abdomen & thrusting him into the water.
Then there was a gruesome disembowelling in the UK at Holme Pierrepont
in which the rescue was complicated by the difficulty of keeping man and
entrails together.
And more recently one 4- T-boned another on the Tideway. The bow broke
as it went through the hull & the shattered end drove into a crewman's
leg, pinioning him in his damaged shell. That was a quite new four: its
bow was weak enough to break & eliminate the bow ball, but sharp & hard
enough to penetrate flesh.
All this because bowballs are _not_ properly integrated with the bow,
are soft, often perished & held on with tape or a screw. Common sense
says they should be hard & be permanently bonded to the bow, & the bow
should be strongly built, not a decorative spike made of poorly
laminated carbon with a car-body-filler core.
As ever, rowing pretends these accidents didn't happen, or couldn't have
been predicted, or were someone else's fault. Why?
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Find: tinyurl.com/2tqujf
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
URLs: carldouglas.co.uk & now on Facebook @ CarlDouglasRacingShells
stew...@gmail.com
Jun 5, 2013, 5:03:41 AM6/5/13
to
Good articles and good point about bow balls. As someone involved in Oxford bumps for a short while now, and a good eye for safety, I find the competition regulations on bow-balls here to be pretty poor ("solidly affixed" being the only requirement even vaguely enforced). Thankfully, our boatman is in the habit of exceeding them, and when he fits a bowball it is bonded to the shell, as well as bolted through.
Having seen two serious T-bonings this term (one in competition in a similar style to the Clare/Trinity Hall collision, and one in training, both thankfully with no injuries) I'm inclined to think we should be taking the problem more seriously. In both cases the bow-ball was immediately destroyed, exposing the bow. In one case, the bow was stopped by hitting a seat track. If it had bounced over the seat lip, some poor girl would have a decent amount of Janousek in her hip.
Just a thought and slight digression, on your first link there is a lot of emphasis on the coach giving instructions on steering, stopping and watching out for other boats. Surely some responsibility should be placed on the coxes? I've found when out at Wallingford recently that I spot problems up ahead long before our coach does. Some of that slideshow gives the impression of a culture where the boat cannot function without a coach on a launch - one wonders what was done 100 years ago, before wakeless petrol launches!
A cox should be the master of the vessel and principally responsible for its safety, and this includes standing up to the coach if they tell you to do something stupid (something pressed into me by Neil Jackson when he taught me Tideway navigation). That article hints at a world where the coach is in absolute charge and the cox is just there to do as they're told.
Stewie
johnf...@gmail.com
Jun 5, 2013, 9:00:28 AM6/5/13
to
On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 5:03:41 AM UTC-4, stew...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>- one wonders what was done 100 years ago, before wakeless petrol launches!
>
From old photos I've seen of rowing Over Here in the US, coaches apparently used large displacement-hull launches with massive inboard engines until wakeless cats were invented perhaps 30? years ago. I suspect they generated a lot of wash, probably limiting where the coach could work from. And added incentive for the second boat not to fall too far behind the varsity!
>
>- one wonders what was done 100 years ago, before wakeless petrol launches!
>
Carl
Jun 5, 2013, 10:19:22 AM6/5/13
to
> Carl
>
> Good articles and good point about bow balls. As someone involved in Oxford bumps for a short while now, and a good eye for safety, I find the competition regulations on bow-balls here to be pretty poor ("solidly affixed" being the only requirement even vaguely enforced). Thankfully, our boatman is in the habit of exceeding them, and when he fits a bowball it is bonded to the shell, as well as bolted through.
>
> Having seen two serious T-bonings this term (one in competition in a similar style to the Clare/Trinity Hall collision, and one in training, both thankfully with no injuries) I'm inclined to think we should be taking the problem more seriously. In both cases the bow-ball was immediately destroyed, exposing the bow. In one case, the bow was stopped by hitting a seat track. If it had bounced over the seat lip, some poor girl would have a decent amount of Janousek in her hip.
>
> Just a thought and slight digression, on your first link there is a lot of emphasis on the coach giving instructions on steering, stopping and watching out for other boats. Surely some responsibility should be placed on the coxes? I've found when out at Wallingford recently that I spot problems up ahead long before our coach does. Some of that slideshow gives the impression of a culture where the boat cannot function without a coach on a launch - one wonders what was done 100 years ago, before wakeless petrol launches!
>
> A cox should be the master of the vessel and principally responsible for its safety, and this includes standing up to the coach if they tell you to do something stupid (something pressed into me by Neil Jackson when he taught me Tideway navigation). That article hints at a world where the coach is in absolute charge and the cox is just there to do as they're told.
>
> Stewie
>
Your reports show how close we too often come to something being much
>
> Good articles and good point about bow balls. As someone involved in Oxford bumps for a short while now, and a good eye for safety, I find the competition regulations on bow-balls here to be pretty poor ("solidly affixed" being the only requirement even vaguely enforced). Thankfully, our boatman is in the habit of exceeding them, and when he fits a bowball it is bonded to the shell, as well as bolted through.
>
> Having seen two serious T-bonings this term (one in competition in a similar style to the Clare/Trinity Hall collision, and one in training, both thankfully with no injuries) I'm inclined to think we should be taking the problem more seriously. In both cases the bow-ball was immediately destroyed, exposing the bow. In one case, the bow was stopped by hitting a seat track. If it had bounced over the seat lip, some poor girl would have a decent amount of Janousek in her hip.
>
> Just a thought and slight digression, on your first link there is a lot of emphasis on the coach giving instructions on steering, stopping and watching out for other boats. Surely some responsibility should be placed on the coxes? I've found when out at Wallingford recently that I spot problems up ahead long before our coach does. Some of that slideshow gives the impression of a culture where the boat cannot function without a coach on a launch - one wonders what was done 100 years ago, before wakeless petrol launches!
>
> A cox should be the master of the vessel and principally responsible for its safety, and this includes standing up to the coach if they tell you to do something stupid (something pressed into me by Neil Jackson when he taught me Tideway navigation). That article hints at a world where the coach is in absolute charge and the cox is just there to do as they're told.
>
> Stewie
>
worse. But rather than learn from it, we push it aside as "unlikely to
recur", knowing that in reality it will recur, if not to us. In that
way we duck the mutual responsibility appropriate to an inclusive sport
& fail to work for each other's well-being. And then someone we don't
know gets badly hurt because everyone decided to ignore the warning signs.
My compliments & respects to your boatman, therefore.
As for control of the boat: without question the cox or steers has
ultimate responsibility for the safe passage of the boat. That's a
difficult one, but you should not send a crew afloat if what cox does is
determined by & subordinated to what coach sees. Cox education &
training is not an optional extra: you shouldn't send a crew out with a
untrained puppet in control.
In sailing, helmsmanship & navigation, including reading the wind, the
water & the conduct of other vessels, are crucial & all good sailing
clubs focus on this. In rowing, cox is too often the unregarded
whipping-boy, told they're too heavy, or bad at steering, by crew
members who carry excess lard & have never themselves steered an
unmanageable eight. Accidents due to poor reading of conditions &
inadequate training & water awareness, such as the Dove Pier incident on
the Tideway a few years back, or the St George's College incident on the
Thames at Walton this year are too often narrowly avoided by luck more
than judgement, & they arise from the false presumption that nothing
will go badly wrong.
Which brings us back to bow safety: most bows are still designed
without thought for safety & left fit to kill or maim behind the shield
of a useless piece of rubber. It need not be so, but the myth that
typical bow balls are good enough is propagated & sustained by the photo
at the end of Mike's link to the Offredi case.
Charles Carroll
Jun 5, 2013, 1:02:03 PM6/5/13
to
> you shouldn't send a crew out with a untrained puppet in control.
Carl,
This is from someone who has never technically ever rowed a single stroke.
If a crew should never be sent out with an untrained cox, then how does a
cox acquire his or her training?
I am not trying to be difficult. I am actually interested in how one goes
about training a cox.
I have been told by several prominent coaches that had I showed at the
boathouse to go out for crew, they would have let me row and erg for about a
week. Then they would have delicately suggested, given my enthusiasm for the
sport, that maybe I should think about becoming a cox.
I do know a little something about how one person has become a cox quite
late in his life. First he is a terrific sailor -- few know the water so
well. And then he is a fair sculler. People are saying he is an excellent
cox. And from all I have heard he agrees. But he is on his way to becoming
the ancient of days and brings with him a long lifetime of experience. So
how do you go about training someone barely out of diapers and completely
lacking in experience to in the art and science of being a cox?
Cordially,
Charles
Chris A
Jun 5, 2013, 1:15:14 PM6/5/13
to
johnf...@gmail.com
Jun 5, 2013, 2:00:39 PM6/5/13
to
On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 1:02:03 PM UTC-4, Charles Carroll wrote:
> This is from someone who has never technically ever rowed a single stroke.
>
> If a crew should never be sent out with an untrained cox, then how does a
> cox acquire his or her training?
>
> I am not trying to be difficult. I am actually interested in how one goes
> about training a cox.
>
(1) Instructional books and videos are available.
> This is from someone who has never technically ever rowed a single stroke.
>
> If a crew should never be sent out with an untrained cox, then how does a
> cox acquire his or her training?
>
> I am not trying to be difficult. I am actually interested in how one goes
> about training a cox.
>
(2) One teaches them the relevant calls, and how to use the same verbiage each time
(3) A coach takes them along in the launch for a training session so they can see what an experienced cox does
(4) The first session or two, the coach may help the cox out if necessary, but tries to avoid eroding their confidence by doing it gently
(5) Coxes often audio record their sessions for critique later, by themselves and by coaches and other coxes
(6) The coach prays that the candidate has an innate force of character and desire to keep their crew safe and help them achieve as much as possible - they become the first advocate for their crew, hopefully. Unfortunately this cannot be taught.
If a coach is very lucky, the cox will steer and run the boat, leaving the coach free to concentrate on what the rowers are doing, though checking occasionally to see that the boat is going where it should. It becomes a partnership.
I have been amazed how a skilled cox kept an 8+ off a lee shore in a strong crosswind during a break in the session: basically having the bow rower on the lee side tap it for a few strokes from time to time.
You're correct that sailing experience often translates into steering ability.
Having rowed previously is irrelevant to learning to cox. In fact, some of our worst-steering coxes were very experienced oarsmen and oarswomen! They assumed that they knew how to do it because they had rowed.
johnf...@gmail.com
Jun 5, 2013, 2:09:29 PM6/5/13
to
Oh, I forgot:
(7) If you are doing winter training in rowing tanks, have the novice coxes run their crews in the tanks, give commands, observe them, coach them, etc.
We would tell our coxes that we wanted them to be in charge from the moment the rowers walk through the boathouse door.
(7) If you are doing winter training in rowing tanks, have the novice coxes run their crews in the tanks, give commands, observe them, coach them, etc.
We would tell our coxes that we wanted them to be in charge from the moment the rowers walk through the boathouse door.
Charles Carroll
Jun 5, 2013, 2:36:24 PM6/5/13
to
John -
Just great! More than I had hoped for. I wonder if anyone else will have
something to add.
I think about what it might have been like to have been a cox. My freshman
year of college I stood 5 ft 7 3/4 in tall and weighed 127 lbs. Through the
years I was there I didn't grow any taller and actually lost weight. As I
said, chances are that had I wanted to do anything with rowing it would have
had to have been as a cox. Not sure I am smart enough, though. Some of the
coxswains I have met over the years have seriously large, fast-working
brains.
Charles
Just great! More than I had hoped for. I wonder if anyone else will have
something to add.
I think about what it might have been like to have been a cox. My freshman
year of college I stood 5 ft 7 3/4 in tall and weighed 127 lbs. Through the
years I was there I didn't grow any taller and actually lost weight. As I
said, chances are that had I wanted to do anything with rowing it would have
had to have been as a cox. Not sure I am smart enough, though. Some of the
coxswains I have met over the years have seriously large, fast-working
brains.
Charles
Sarah Harbour
Jun 6, 2013, 5:49:43 AM6/6/13
to
On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 6:15:14 PM UTC+1, Chris A wrote:
>
> Gosh I'd forgotten I'd posted that. The myth was even being repeated to me (that it's why it's LMBC and not SJCBC) by the President of EBC last month.
And he's a Clare man too!
>
> Gosh I'd forgotten I'd posted that. The myth was even being repeated to me (that it's why it's LMBC and not SJCBC) by the President of EBC last month.
Sarah
Sarah Harbour
Jun 6, 2013, 5:54:01 AM6/6/13
to
On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 6:02:03 PM UTC+1, Charles Carroll wrote:
> > you shouldn't send a crew out with a untrained puppet in control.
>
>
>
> Carl,
>
>
>
> This is from someone who has never technically ever rowed a single stroke.
>
>
>
> If a crew should never be sent out with an untrained cox, then how does a
>
> cox acquire his or her training?
>
>
>
> I am not trying to be difficult. I am actually interested in how one goes
>
> about training a cox.
>
In a Tub Pair, which has enough space to sit two people in the 'cox's seat'. The cox then learns how to maneuver a boat and make basic calls about starting and stopping the rowing, all while the boat is going slowly and has someone else who can take control if need be (bit like dual controls for a learner car driver). Sadly, I don't think such training happens anywhere near as much as it should do.
> > you shouldn't send a crew out with a untrained puppet in control.
>
>
>
> Carl,
>
>
>
> This is from someone who has never technically ever rowed a single stroke.
>
>
>
> If a crew should never be sent out with an untrained cox, then how does a
>
> cox acquire his or her training?
>
>
>
> I am not trying to be difficult. I am actually interested in how one goes
>
> about training a cox.
>
Sarah
andymck...@gmail.com
Jun 6, 2013, 6:14:46 AM6/6/13
to
Catch them young enough, and in the right boat, and they can learn while sitting on your lap! I reckon my son first coxed about age 8 sitting in front of me - it can't have been too bad an introduction, because he still coxes (and coaches) today.
Andy McKenzie
Richard
Jun 6, 2013, 6:25:28 AM6/6/13
to
Of course, while you can use a tub pair to teach coxes, there's no "dual control" option to train steers for coxless boats. You're flying solo on your first outing. It terrified me (until I discovered it's not as difficult as I thought it would be). And no more shouty coxes to bother us in the four thereafter. Result! ;-)
[Ducks and and runs for cover...]
Charles Carroll
Jun 6, 2013, 1:08:45 PM6/6/13
to
> we encourage all our members to try coxing
>
>
> Catch them young enough, and in the right boat,
> and they can learn while sitting on your lap!
> … my son first coxed about age 8 sitting in front of me
> and they can learn while sitting on your lap!
Andy,
Would I ever love to have a photograph of that!
So long as I think about rowing it will be an enduring image for me. What
can be better than a young child sitting in his or her father’ lap and
learning to cox?
Many thanks,
Charles
Sarah Harbour
Jun 6, 2013, 3:52:53 PM6/6/13
to
On Thursday, June 6, 2013 11:25:28 AM UTC+1, Richard wrote:
>
> Ah tub pairs! Fantastic for pub trips too. Or so I'm told. Ahem...
>
>
>
> Of course, while you can use a tub pair to teach coxes, there's no "dual control" option to train steers for coxless boats. You're flying solo on your first outing. It terrified me (until I discovered it's not as difficult as I thought it would be). And no more shouty coxes to bother us in the four thereafter. Result! ;-)
>
>
>
> [Ducks and and runs for cover...]
Someone once told me that the best coxes are those who understand that rowers are perfectly capable of rowing without them... and I think I'd agree with that - those who do are the ones that actually add speed to a crew!
>
> Ah tub pairs! Fantastic for pub trips too. Or so I'm told. Ahem...
>
>
>
> Of course, while you can use a tub pair to teach coxes, there's no "dual control" option to train steers for coxless boats. You're flying solo on your first outing. It terrified me (until I discovered it's not as difficult as I thought it would be). And no more shouty coxes to bother us in the four thereafter. Result! ;-)
>
>
>
> [Ducks and and runs for cover...]
Sarah
SingleMinded
Jun 6, 2013, 4:31:41 PM6/6/13
to
Of course, you couldn't have both cox and steerer moving the rudder at the same time or they'd damage the steering gear...
Eberhard Nabel
Jun 7, 2013, 3:14:23 AM6/7/13
to
In https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!searchin/rec.sport.rowing/boston$20accident/rec.sport.rowing/lgdo39tS9so/iDG9IYcYxmkJ KC wrote
What I wonder is, with virtually all modern boats made of composites,
couldn't the bow be any shape at all? Why must the bow be pin-point
sharp, with a stupid rubber ball fastened loosely to it? Why not design
the composite bow to be round/blunt?
-Kieran
Eberhard
Phil
Jun 7, 2013, 3:30:17 AM6/7/13
to
On Jun 7, 8:14 am, Eberhard Nabel <ebna...@aol.com> wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 4. Juni 2013 20:09:20 UTC+2 schrieb Mike De Petris:
>
> > Never forget:
>
> >http://raid.informare.it/docs/pdf/AntonioOffredi.pdf
>
> >https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=345861455540791&set=gm.183652...
> Am Dienstag, 4. Juni 2013 20:09:20 UTC+2 schrieb Mike De Petris:
>
> > Never forget:
>
> >http://raid.informare.it/docs/pdf/AntonioOffredi.pdf
>
>
> Old Problem.
>
> Inhttps://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!searchin/rec.sport.rowin...KC wrote
>
> What I wonder is, with virtually all modern boats made of composites,
> couldn't the bow be any shape at all? Why must the bow be pin-point
> sharp, with a stupid rubber ball fastened loosely to it? Why not design
> the composite bow to be round/blunt?
>
> -Kieran
>
> Eberhard
Some 1960's wooden Empachers were designed thus.
> What I wonder is, with virtually all modern boats made of composites,
> couldn't the bow be any shape at all? Why must the bow be pin-point
> sharp, with a stupid rubber ball fastened loosely to it? Why not design
> the composite bow to be round/blunt?
>
> -Kieran
>
> Eberhard
I still have 2' of the bow of one at home.
Phil.
Mike De Petris
Jun 7, 2013, 3:32:30 AM6/7/13
to
On Friday, June 7, 2013 9:30:17 AM UTC+2, Phil wrote:
> Some 1960's wooden Empachers were designed thus.
> I still have 2' of the bow of one at home.
extracted from your leg?
> Some 1960's wooden Empachers were designed thus.
> I still have 2' of the bow of one at home.
=)
johnf...@gmail.com
Jun 7, 2013, 5:25:38 AM6/7/13
to
On Friday, June 7, 2013 3:14:23 AM UTC-4, Eberhard Nabel wrote:
> What I wonder is, with virtually all modern boats made of composites,
> couldn't the bow be any shape at all? Why must the bow be pin-point
> sharp, with a stupid rubber ball fastened loosely to it? Why not design
> the composite bow to be round/blunt?
>
Some are:
> What I wonder is, with virtually all modern boats made of composites,
> couldn't the bow be any shape at all? Why must the bow be pin-point
> sharp, with a stupid rubber ball fastened loosely to it? Why not design
> the composite bow to be round/blunt?
>
http://www.resoluteracing.com/products/z4.html
And some Hudsons.
Not that I would want to be hit by any of these either.
Phil
Jun 7, 2013, 5:52:59 AM6/7/13
to
Give you a hell of a bruise I should imagine, though.
I'll see if I can remember to get some photos.
Carl
Jun 7, 2013, 6:07:16 AM6/7/13
to
to "fit" on these upturned bows. If so, it is a mere decoration.
Although I'm sure it's better to be rammed by a chisel than by a point,
it'd be far better to be hit by something just as hard but with a much
larger surface radius.
Some while back we referred to the ~80's Empachers which had
cast-in-place ellipsoids (long axis vertical) in place of the floppy
ball, which seemed a far better solution & very applicable to the boats
you mention here.
SingleMinded
Jun 7, 2013, 7:19:22 AM6/7/13
to
I'm not staying that a bowball is sufficient for the newly-fashionable squared-off bows (I think Filippi have them as well), just that they should have one as well as other "bumpers".
Carl
Jun 7, 2013, 8:04:42 AM6/7/13
to
On 07/06/2013 12:19, SingleMinded wrote:
> On Friday, 7 June 2013 11:07:16 UTC+1, Carl wrote:
>> On 07/06/2013 10:25, johnf...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, June 7, 2013 3:14:23 AM UTC-4, Eberhard Nabel wrote:
>>
>>>> What I wonder is, with virtually all modern boats made of composites,
>>
>>>> couldn't the bow be any shape at all? Why must the bow be pin-point
>>
>>>> sharp, with a stupid rubber ball fastened loosely to it? Why not design
>>
>>>> the composite bow to be round/blunt?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>> Some are:
>>
>>> http://www.resoluteracing.com/products/z4.html
>>
>>>
>>
>>> And some Hudsons.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Not that I would want to be hit by any of these either.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Not infrequently you find that the "standard" bowball has been butchered
>>
>> to "fit" on these upturned bows. If so, it is a mere decoration.
>>
>>
>>
>> Although I'm sure it's better to be rammed by a chisel than by a point,
>>
>> it'd be far better to be hit by something just as hard but with a much
>>
>> larger surface radius.
>>
>>
>>
>> Some while back we referred to the ~80's Empachers which had
>>
>> cast-in-place ellipsoids (long axis vertical) in place of the floppy
>>
>> ball, which seemed a far better solution & very applicable to the boats
>>
>> you mention here.
>>
>>
>>
>> Carl
>>
>
> On Friday, 7 June 2013 11:07:16 UTC+1, Carl wrote:
>> On 07/06/2013 10:25, johnf...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, June 7, 2013 3:14:23 AM UTC-4, Eberhard Nabel wrote:
>>
>>>> What I wonder is, with virtually all modern boats made of composites,
>>
>>>> couldn't the bow be any shape at all? Why must the bow be pin-point
>>
>>>> sharp, with a stupid rubber ball fastened loosely to it? Why not design
>>
>>>> the composite bow to be round/blunt?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>> Some are:
>>
>>> http://www.resoluteracing.com/products/z4.html
>>
>>>
>>
>>> And some Hudsons.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Not that I would want to be hit by any of these either.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Not infrequently you find that the "standard" bowball has been butchered
>>
>> to "fit" on these upturned bows. If so, it is a mere decoration.
>>
>>
>>
>> Although I'm sure it's better to be rammed by a chisel than by a point,
>>
>> it'd be far better to be hit by something just as hard but with a much
>>
>> larger surface radius.
>>
>>
>>
>> Some while back we referred to the ~80's Empachers which had
>>
>> cast-in-place ellipsoids (long axis vertical) in place of the floppy
>>
>> ball, which seemed a far better solution & very applicable to the boats
>>
>> you mention here.
>>
>>
>>
>> Carl
>>
>
> Of course, there is a point (no pun intended!) to a bowball as "decoration" for judging start alignment and finishes- current rules seem to state that you need a bowball even if there is some other collision protection fitted.
>
> I'm not staying that a bowball is sufficient for the newly-fashionable squared-off bows (I think Filippi have them as well), just that they should have one as well as other "bumpers".
>
The bowball problem stems (no pun!) from the fact that the regulations
>
> I'm not staying that a bowball is sufficient for the newly-fashionable squared-off bows (I think Filippi have them as well), just that they should have one as well as other "bumpers".
>
define it more as a photo-finish marker than as a safety device.
Can we imagine a road traffic regulation which imposes colour &
dimensional requirements on car seatbelts but does not define their
required performance in an crash?
Thus we have no rules on the response of a bow & ball to a standard set
of impacts, nor of the maximum acceptable impact pressure on a human
dummy during such an impact. But it must be not less than 4cm in
diameter, of soft rubber or similar and, most importantly, white! That
completely puts cart before horse.
Let's again address the impact issues - how do bows injure rowers?
1. The ball is loosely attached or perished so that it either deflects,
falls away or offers no resistance to the point of the bow which then
impacts directly with the rower's body, spearing into them
2. The ball stays put but, being soft, it elastically deforms so that
the impact force concentrates over a much smaller area, barely larger
than the hard tip of the bow, causing surface rupture of flesh with
possible deep injury & fractures without major penetration of the body
3. The bow breaks just behind
4. The ball is relatively hard & does not deflect, but the entire force
of nearly 1 tonne of fast moving eight is concentrated over a 4cm
spherical surface. That's a heck of an impact over a small area. It
starts on a much smaller area & has to push 2cm into yielding flesh
before maximising the contact area & minimising the pressure. It could
do a lot of damage but probably won't penetrate
If the contact area were larger, that would correspondingly reduce the
impact pressures.
If the enlarged contact area were padded on its surface & backed by
harder material, that would reduce injury to bones & harder tissues by
spreading the load.
If the contact surface were sprung (on a damper) that would further
reduce injury.
if the bow were properly constructed to resist direct & glancing impacts
that would reduce the change of broken bows carving into flesh.
But why do we need the bowball as a finish marker? Kayakers don't have
them. Nor do sailors.
0 new messages