Shame about the Vets HoRR
Christopher Anton
rapidly rising river whether it would manage to go ahead.
di@rocktheboat
<c.an...@NOSPAM.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> I did wonder as our JIRR trials were being called off in a stiff wind and
> rapidly rising river whether it would manage to go ahead.
all that effort wasted organising the event, trailering boats to the
event, training for the event by so many crews and so cruel of the
wind to have gone again this morning ....
at least HoRR went ahead in wonderful conditions
carolinetu
There were a lot of disappointed people at Chiswick, where conditions
looked slightly choppy but not bad enough to deter a bunch of seasoned
veterans. But I gather it was much worse at Putney.
And I was so looking forward to making one of my occasional guest
appearances in a racing boat...!
Caroline
anatol...@abdm.co.uk
decided to run their own little race and headed up to the Pink House.
By all accounts the conditions were pretty crap up there too, so they
all ended up back in the bar anyway.
Shame, but it was the other way round last year. The HORR was
cancelled (well almost) and the Vets went ahead without hitch the
following day.
Anatole
Rachel Quarrell
> There were a lot of disappointed people at Chiswick, where conditions
> looked slightly choppy but not bad enough to deter a bunch of seasoned
> veterans. But I gather it was much worse at Putney.
No, it wasn't at all bad at Putney, it was a normal bouncy-water fairly
flat day. Looked choppy at the top of the tide, but by the time everyone
was boating it was fine - the tide fully turning and the level dropping
made a lot of difference inside about 15 minutes. The wind may also have
swung round - by 10:20am it was a straight and stiff but not howling
tail-wind at Putney. Visibly fine right up to Harrods.
The problem area was I gather the same as for the HORR last year - bad
between Barnes Bridge and St Paul's - at least at the time the decision
was being made. I drove back at 11am, after we went for a brief paddle on
by now utterly normal water at Putney, but I drove over Chiswick Bridge
not Hammersmith, so I don't know what the bad water had turned into by
then.
RQ.
chris harrison
wrote:
> The problem area was I gather the same as for the HORR last year - bad
> between Barnes Bridge and St Paul's - at least at the time the decision
> was being made.
The decision was made at 9-45, ahead of a 10-30 kick-off.
The reports we were receiving at race control were from the region
around Barnes Bridge, the Bandstand and on to Chiswick Pier and the
Eyot. Both the PLA and the RNLI reported significant (>18 inches) of
chop with white horses. The chief umpire and a handful of other
marshalls en route to the start saw large stoppers and standing waves
under Barnes Bridge. The questions we had to consider were whether the
conditions were safely rowable and what impact a delay in starting
might make.
As Rachel says, watching out of the window in Putney was frustrating.
There was wind and rain so it wasn't particularly pleasant, but the
water was calm enough and with the tide streaming out, there will have
been thoughts from many that we should look to take advantage of the
dropping water level.
We were watching the wind speed gauges in Putney and the average
speeds and the gusts were noticably increasing, so when the reports
from the course told of poor conditions we had no reasonable evidence
to suggest that delaying the start for 30-60 minutes would see any
improvement. By calling the race off with 45 minutes to spare we saved
the majority of crews from boating and causing possible problems in
the unpredictable conditions - we could have waited, but an hour later
we would have had 150+ crews on the water and almost certainly worse
conditions.
The wind was mostly on a 330 degree heading, which is an unusual
direction for the Tideway which also meant that even for locals the
wind was going to cause different problems in areas that we normally
expect relative calm.
We do appreciate that in similar circumstances the Schools Head opted
to shorten the course and marshalled through the worst conditions,
starting downstream of them. We had deliberately not planned for this
outcome and thus were not prepared to run the risk of communicating a
hastily re-planned event to all of the crews and event staff.
- chris harrison, entries secretary and race committee, vets head.
David Jillings
upstream were bad, but downstream were fine. As usual, a good deal of the
lumpy water was caused by launches, especially the big Harbour Master cat
which went past at full speed at 9.15am just as people were starting to
boat. The safety RIBs were making the most of the opportunity to give their
massive engines a blast, chasing down crews to tell them to watch out for
dangerous conditions!
We did a piece from Hammersmith to Putney and the water was absolutely fine.
We didn't realise the other MBC crews had not boated and were de-rigged and
loaded, waiting about in the rain for us to come off the river so they could
go home and get warm. Weren't we popular? It's shame the race couldn't
have been run over this shortened course but I appreciate many of the crews
boating upriver of Hammerschmidt wouldn't have been able to get down there.
Normally I am quick to criticise organisers for being too cautious about
cancelling, but I think it was the right call this time, unfortunately.
However, the river is always going to be at its worst when the tide is
highest and I wonder if conditions in Corney Reach had improved by midday.
David.
"Rachel Quarrell" <quar...@raven.linux.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.62.08...@raven.linux.ox.ac.uk...
coach
wrote:
It was on the reach between Barnes and the cross over that was
particularly bad. At the 10:30, when the race was due to begin, the
wind strength had increased significantly from the time when the
cancellation was made.
Whilst the some crews might have been able to steer through calmer
waters by cutting the bend at the steps, the first few could have
found themselves confronted by latecommers still paddling up to start
and the crews lower down the order would have met crews returning up
river.
Racing is supposed to be safe and fair. The conditions on Sunday where
such that neither of these criteria could be met.
Carl Douglas
> We (Molesey) boated at St Pauls where it was clear that the water conditions
> upstream were bad, but downstream were fine. As usual, a good deal of the
> lumpy water was caused by launches, especially the big Harbour Master cat
> which went past at full speed at 9.15am just as people were starting to
> boat. The safety RIBs were making the most of the opportunity to give their
> massive engines a blast, chasing down crews to tell them to watch out for
> dangerous conditions!
>
> We did a piece from Hammersmith to Putney and the water was absolutely fine.
> We didn't realise the other MBC crews had not boated and were de-rigged and
> loaded, waiting about in the rain for us to come off the river so they could
> go home and get warm. Weren't we popular? It's shame the race couldn't
> have been run over this shortened course but I appreciate many of the crews
> boating upriver of Hammerschmidt wouldn't have been able to get down there.
>
> Normally I am quick to criticise organisers for being too cautious about
> cancelling, but I think it was the right call this time, unfortunately.
> However, the river is always going to be at its worst when the tide is
> highest and I wonder if conditions in Corney Reach had improved by midday.
>
> David.
>
From all I've heard, the organisers made the right call & should be
roundly congratulated for so doing.
Those peeved by the cancellations might do well to remember that the
prime reason why races are cancelled (or should in the past have been
cancelled) is that so many eights still in everyday use can & do sink
when it gets a bit Tideway-rough. If all eights were fully buoyant, as
so easily they could be for just a modest outlay (see below),
cancellations would at worst be fewer & in probably unnecessary.
I don't know what, in the UK, is the average cost per crew of turning up
to an event, but I'm confident that it will be in the order of some
hundreds of pounds. Those with fully buoyant shells could most probably
have raced in good safety. But those with underbuoyant shells quite
clearly could not.
It is the continued existence of these new & old underbuoyant shells,
lead players in multiple sinkings in recent events, which has driven
home the need to cancel when things look like they're going to be rough.
The farce in all this is that to convert an eight to full buoyancy is so
ridiculously cheap. If it is not altogether too much bother for clubs
with open-under-seats, flow-through shells to click on the following
link, they will see just how cheaply & easily they can convert those
boats to full buoyancy:
http://www.leoblockley.org.uk/retro-fitting-buoyancy.asp
where you will see not only how, but can read a costed account of the
job being done (thanks, Robin!).
If these clubs would get their acts together then, despite the rather
more extreme weather, their crews would be safe & they would nolonger be
parasitising those whose shells are fully buoyant when events have to be
cancelled only to protect those who still think full buoyancy if for the
birds.
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
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)
JBC...@googlemail.com
> URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk(boats) &www.aerowing.co.uk(riggers)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Having rowed the shortened course from Putney to Hammersmith Bridge a
few years ago (having boated at Civil Service) I fully agree that the
right decision was made. The decision should not have anything to do
with full buoyancy; if boats are likely to take in enough water for it
to matter, the event should be cancelled, it may be safer to row with
the footwells full but it is not going to be a good race.
Brian
Paul
> URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk(boats) &www.aerowing.co.uk(riggers)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
If all eights were fully buoyant, as
> so easily they could be for just a modest outlay (see below),
> cancellations would at worst be fewer & in probably unnecessary.
Thus demonstarating the danger of focussing just on buoyancy and the
belief that we can make unsinkable boats. Swamping is not the only
danger in stong winds and tides and if we believe that once all boats
are fully buoyant we can row in anything, we may just substitute one
set of dangerous conditions for another. There is more to safety than
buoyancy (important though it is)
Carl Douglas
Races have not historically been cancelled for reasons of unfairness.
Indeed, fairness in such a situation is difficult to pre-judge &
impossible to measure after the event. In fact we seem conspicuously
unconcerned over fairness in our sport when you look at how multilane
degenerates into a biased farce on windy days. You appear to have no
possible grounds to argue that cancellation was or should have been made
in this case on the unquantifiable grounds of fairness in this case.
Head races are equally fair & unfair for all, as all must pass over the
same water & in so doing the have already consented to accept whatever
changes in conditions they may encounter, whether or not these benefit
them, or benefit others instead.
In this case it would be a grave injustice to the organisers so suggest
that they would, or even should, have put some such untenable notion of
fairness at a priority even remotely approaching that which is rightly
accorded to safety.
On safety, there was no apparent danger to crews from the rough
conditions other than that of swamping. Nor was there any danger to
swamped eights, except for those lacking full buoyancy, who would have
been a danger to themselves & a nuisance to everyone else.
Having a "good race" is simply not a sustainable argument. Don't you
recall the Boat Race a couple of years back? Both boat were fully
buoyant, which on that day in those conditions spared everyone the
traditional farce of a mid-race sinking. But while one crew opted to
retain its pumps, the other omitted theirs. Near ARA HQ both boats
filled up significantly but neither sank. An exciting race continued,
with the one crew pulling away as their pumps progressively lightened
their boat.
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
Extrapolating, as you have done, from the particular to the most extreme
is a standard debating tactic but is, at best, a flawed argument prone
to disintegrate on closer examination.
I was talking about the conditions applying yesterday morning on the
Tideway at the proposed time of the Vets' Head. And I was also
referring to other past events which did go ahead only to end in mass
sinkings & near collisions as crews desperate to stay afloat in
underbuoyant shells felt obliged to row off-course. I was not remotely
talking about conditions under which waves are large enough to hazard
the structural integrity of a well-built eight. Nor about conditions
likely to cause shells to be driven into bridges or ashore. Nor about
conditions of stream likely to make it difficult to retain safe control
of your boat.
It needs to be well understood that full buoyancy does render sound
boats with competent crews safe to be rowed in the kind of conditions of
yesterday morning, & in the kinds of conditions of those other memorable
events. That does not give licence to anyone to take any boat out in
conditions which are simply unrowable (something which already happens
too often, regardless of the buoyancy of the boats). Nor do I for a
moment advocate such folly. And no one has the right to even hint that
I might.
Of course, you may have had a different take on yesterday morning's
Tideway conditions - in which case I don't think your view is widely
shared. Otherwise I must return you to my original point: yesterday's
Vets Head could apparently have gone ahead entirely safely (in as far as
any rowing is entirely safe, but let's not split hairs) if all crews had
boated in fully buoyant shells. And the same applies to every past
swamp-fest that I can recall. Sure, someone could catch a big crab &
roll the eight, but that has not to my knowledge happened in any past
rough-water & swimming head event, where _always_ the problem has been
the same - boat fills up, lacks sufficient buoyancy, sinks under the
crew, crew end up swimming.
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
coach
Sunday's conditions were such that even some of the most bouyant
shells would have been in difficulty. I agree that a fully bouyant
boat would have remained afloat, but the weight of water shipped into
the boat would have been such that some of the more elderly crews
competing would have not been able to make any headway. For the
rudder to operate, there has to be a flow of water over the surface of
the fin and rudder. If a crew cannot make progress, they cannot steer.
Given that many of the rowers competing on Sunday were at or past
their "sell by date" , of not their "best before date", the event
organisers made the only decision open to them.
In 1911 the White Star Shipping line believed that, in forming
watertight compartments below water level, they had created a fully
bouyant trans-atlantic liner. This and the incorporation of the latest
in communication technology, the Marconi Radio, gave them the
confidence to scimp on other safety measures and risk assessments. The
result, THE TITANIC.
Bouyancy is not everything.
kda...@kidare.com
> rapidly rising river whether it would manage to go ahead.
Photos of the Corney Reach at BigBlade (via RQ) here:
http://www.bigblade-photos.com/rowing/events/2008/veh08/bycrew/Corney%20Reach.html
Kit
mruscoe
> In 1911 the White Star Shipping line believed that, in forming
> watertight compartments below water level, they had created a fully
> bouyant trans-atlantic liner. This and the incorporation of the latest
> in communication technology, the Marconi Radio, gave them the
> confidence to scimp on other safety measures and risk assessments. The
> result, THE TITANIC.
The Titanic was the equivalent of having all your hatch covers missing...
Stephen and Jane
>
> In 1911 the White Star Shipping line believed that, in forming
> watertight compartments below water level, they had created a fully
> bouyant trans-atlantic liner. This and the incorporation of the latest
> in communication technology, the Marconi Radio, gave them the
> confidence to scimp on other safety measures and risk assessments. The
> result, THE TITANIC.
The compartments in the Titanic were not sealed because they were open at
the top, and once the compartment damaged by the collision filled it
overspilled into the next and so on and so on. It is my understanding that
the original plan was for sealed compartments, but these were never
completed for financial reasons.
Similarly, the apparently cavalier attitude to safety was driven by the need
to cut financial corners.
> Bouyancy is not everything...
...but it should be one part of a general safety conscious approach. But
even when much else fails buoyancy can make the difference between life and
death. At the second Inquest into our son's death the Coroner concluded
that had Leo's boat been fully buoyant he would not have died - and this is
in spite of all the many other operational deficiencies that he listed,
along with the horrendous weather.
Inbuilt buoyancy is a highly effective default safety measure, which does
not rely on an individual undertaking an effective risk assessment,
predicting the future, or remembering the past at each and every outing. We
would like to believe that every rower does this effectively every time they
go out on the water, but we doubt that would be realistic.
Jane and Stephen
Carl Douglas
Let's pass by your Titanic misunderstanding, others having already dealt
with it.
Waterlogging an eight does _not_ prevent it from making headway. That's
an argument entirely without support, & indeed we have seen many
examples of well-waterlogged shells making decent progress. You are
simply excavating another of those old & bogus arguments put forward by
those who never wanted shell made fully buoyant. In simple terms, the
speed of a boat is inversely proportional to the cube of the power
applied & directly proportional to its wetted surface. Let's be
generous to your argument & suppose that swamping doubles the wetted
surface & that being low in the water results in the crew rowing only
1/3 as hard? Even then the boat will still move at 35% of it peak
racing speed - = ~1.7m/sec or 6kph or 3.8mph - a handy walking speed &
plenty to allow you to reach safety even in a strong current.
The point of full buoyancy - beyond you not having to swim - is that it
enable waterlogged shells to be rowed & steered by their safely seated
crews, either to the end of the race or to a place of safety. Swamping
does not, as you erroneously claim, prevent a boat from being steered -
not even with the typically ineffectual bits of tin so popular within
our sport ;). And you always have oars on both sides, which every
sculler relies upon for every steering function & which every crew uses
to at least some extent in every outing, if only at the ends when
manoeuvring to & from the landing place.
Liz
> coach wrote:
> > Sunday's conditions were such that even some of the most bouyant
> > shells would have been in difficulty. I agree that a fully bouyant
> > boat would have remained afloat, but the weight of water shipped into
> > the boat would have been such that some of the more elderly crews
> > competing would have not been able to make any headway. For the
> > rudder to operate, there has to be a flow of water over the surface of
> > the fin and rudder. If a crew cannot make progress, they cannot steer.
>
>
> Waterlogging an eight does _not_ prevent it from making headway. That's
> an argument entirely without support, & indeed we have seen many
> examples of well-waterlogged shells making decent progress. You are
> simply excavating another of those old & bogus arguments put forward by
> those who never wanted shell made fully buoyant. In simple terms, the
> speed of a boat is inversely proportional to the cube of the power
> applied & directly proportional to its wetted surface. Let's be
> generous to your argument & suppose that swamping doubles the wetted
> surface & that being low in the water results in the crew rowing only
> 1/3 as hard? Even then the boat will still move at 35% of it peak
> racing speed - = ~1.7m/sec or 6kph or 3.8mph - a handy walking speed &
> plenty to allow you to reach safety even in a strong current.
>
>
> 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
> Email: c...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
> URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk(boats) &www.aerowing.co.uk(riggers)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I was in a tin-fish heading for marshalling near Chiswisk Bridge. As a
result we went through the Eyot to Barnes Bridge section at the time
that the organisers were assessing the conditions.
There is NO WAY that I would have wanted to be in/on a rowing boat in
those conditions. As it was I was getting concerned about the tin-
fish, although my driver seemed quite happy, and was more than happy
that I was wearing a lifejacket - I don't think I've ever felt that
before.
There were standing waves that looked more like 2ft high and several
feet-to-yards between crests. I've certainly known of eights breaking
in those sorts of conditions. There was a HUGE standing wave as you
angled through the bridge and then above Barnes it was absolutely
flat.
There was only one eight that ended up in that section - perhaps
someone should ask them whether they felt at all comfortable. It wa
shepherded to the nearest landing stage and chose not to try to row
back to their original boating point when the race was abandoned.
Liz
rdup...@hotmail.com
part:
>
In simple terms, the
> speed of a boat is inversely proportional to the cube of the power
> applied & directly proportional to its wetted surface. Let's be
> generous to your argument & suppose that swamping doubles the wetted
> surface & that being low in the water results in the crew rowing only
> 1/3 as hard? Even then the boat will still move at 35% of it peak
> racing speed - = ~1.7m/sec or 6kph or 3.8mph - a handy walking speed &
> plenty to allow you to reach safety even in a strong current.
>
It probably won't cost you much sleep to learn that I'm [still]
uncomfortable with inversely, cube rather than cube root, and
directly!
Richard
Carl Douglas
Yup, correction much needed! As you say, I did the sums right, just got
the words wrong. :(
As the mathematician said to his bank manager as they studied a large
area of red ink on his statement, "Well, it's only a sign convention,
isn't it?"
chris harrison
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I was in a tin-fish heading for marshalling near Chiswisk Bridge. As a
> result we went through the Eyot to Barnes Bridge section at the time
> that the organisers were assessing the conditions.
> There is NO WAY that I would have wanted to be in/on a rowing boat in
> those conditions. As it was I was getting concerned about the tin-
> fish, although my driver seemed quite happy, and was more than happy
> that I was wearing a lifejacket - I don't think I've ever felt that
> before.
Which does raise the question of how buoyant most of the tin fishes we
coach and marshall in are ...
Carl Douglas
>
>
> I was in a tin-fish heading for marshalling near Chiswisk Bridge. As a
> result we went through the Eyot to Barnes Bridge section at the time
> that the organisers were assessing the conditions.
> There is NO WAY that I would have wanted to be in/on a rowing boat in
> those conditions. As it was I was getting concerned about the tin-
> fish, although my driver seemed quite happy, and was more than happy
> that I was wearing a lifejacket - I don't think I've ever felt that
> before.
> There were standing waves that looked more like 2ft high and several
> feet-to-yards between crests. I've certainly known of eights breaking
> in those sorts of conditions. There was a HUGE standing wave as you
> angled through the bridge and then above Barnes it was absolutely
> flat.
> There was only one eight that ended up in that section - perhaps
> someone should ask them whether they felt at all comfortable. It wa
> shepherded to the nearest landing stage and chose not to try to row
> back to their original boating point when the race was abandoned.
>
> Liz
In which case, clearly no way that race should/could have been rowed at
that time. I'd not heard previously of such foul conditions that day.
Many thanks for the update.
Now to why eights break up. It is very much to do with the unbalanced
distribution of buoyancy & load:
A swamped eight without enclosed compartments except under the decks
will end up, when swamped, with ~1/4 tonne of uplift at each end, the
crew's weight (say 3/4 tonne, less an allowance for partly immersed
legs) pressing down along the middle 2/3rds & a large mass of water
(maybe 1.5 tonne) rolling from end to end of that mid section.
In contrast, a fully-buoyant eight will have at least an additional 50kg
(0.4 tonne) of uplift per person distributed along its middle 2/3, it
will not sit as low in the water, so will contain less water & that
water no be able to shift so easily along the boat.
Thus the fully buoyant shell has lower bending loads under static
conditions, weighs less under all conditions & is less subject to the
consequences of surging masses of water when in waves.
That said, I am sure you will find that almost every case of an eight
breaking apart in swamping conditions is due to a failure at the section
joint - usually the joint tears out of 1 or other part of the boat,
perhaps bringing some parts with it. If there is an identifiable source
of structural weakness, full buoyancy will reduce the chance of failure
for the reasons explained above. Sections should not be points of weakness.
As for your tin fish: I imagine that was one of the entirely
non-buoyant kind? What sense does it make to be out in such conditions,
PFD or no, in a boat which when it takes on water must sink?
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
Pete
> There were a lot of disappointed people at Chiswick, where conditions
> looked slightly choppy but not bad enough to deter a bunch of seasoned
> veterans. But I gather it was much worse at Putney.
>
> And I was so looking forward to making one of my occasional guest
> appearances in a racing boat...!
Don't know about Putney, but I was around the Chiswick area. Looking
over Chiswick Bridge, it felt windy but the water was pretty flat and
clearly rowable. Looking east over Barnes Bridge (about 10' earlier,
basically same wind conditions) you would either be rowing a buoyant
boat or swimming, lots of white horses and standing waves. The
organisers got it right.
Pete
Paul
> URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk(boats) &www.aerowing.co.uk(riggers)- Hide quoted text -
>
I have to disagree with you Carl. You assume that boats are crewed and
steered by people who know what to do in difficult conditions, do not
panic when water is sloshing around their waste and remain calm and
rational. If conditions are bad enough to swamp boats then people
should not be out and events should be cancelled, no matter how
buoyant the boats are.
coach
the designers, mistakenly, believed they had created a fully bouyant
vessel, they felt confident enough to skimp on other safety features,
such as life boats and evacuation drills.
Just because ones boat is fully bouyant does not absolve rowers from
the need to undertake an assessment of the conditions. If your boat is
bouyant, then you have a higher factor of safety should conditions
deteriorate or you are caught by an unexpected wave.
Rob Collings
> I have to disagree with you Carl. You assume that boats are crewed and
> steered by people who know what to do in difficult conditions, do not
> panic when water is sloshing around their waste and remain calm and
> rational.
If they know what to do AND are capable of doing it. I've seen a
number of less experienced boats in winds or waves who simply do not
possess the skills to maneuver their boat in awkward conditions. If
you aren't able to keep your boat to a safe course then you present a
risk to yourself and to others. A crew I was coaching came rather
closer than I'd like to a nasty crash in the middle of Strathclyde
Park when, while they were doing a piece down the course, a novice
eight was rowing to the start in the lanes. Turns out that although
the cox knew what he was doing, the crew were not up to rowing in the
stiff crosswind, so he could not keep the boat in its proper place.
Then try marshalling crews and keep them under control in rough
conditions while they aren't going anywhere and it can just get worse!
While there are crews around that present a significant risk of not
being able to cope, cancellation has to be the only choice. Bouyancy
moves that threshold and reduces the risk of injury but doesn't
fundamentally solve the problem of crews not being able to cope with
rough water or high winds.
Rob.
Carl Douglas
Paul, it is difficult to argue around your movable goalposts.
What you have described is absolutely _not_ a fully buoyant shell, since
it is insufficiently buoyant to meet either the FISA or, better still,
the Blockley, standards for flotation. The FISA standard, which is the
less stringent of the 2, says:
"When full of water a boat with the crew seated in the rowing position
should float in such a way that the top of the seat is a maximum of 5 cm
(2 inches) below the static waterline."
What you describe is the a boat with defective flotation. It is the
sort of boat we should nolonger have in our clubhouses. Nor is it one
in which anyone should at any time be rowing. Period.
See also:
http://www.leoblockley.org.uk/tests.asp
If conditions are judged to be truly unrowable, then I agree that no one
should be out there trying to row.. However, the for more usual
situation is that conditions seem rowable & then deteriorate
unexpectedly on some part of the course. And full buoyancy would ensure
that, in the event that the race was underway when such a deterioration
occurred which necessitated abandonment, crews would be able to remain
seated & afloat, & able bring themselves into shelter on a command - say
a maroon, or combination thereof - being fired after the race start.
Nothing achieves absolute safety. Rowing cannot be risk free. The
present problem is that rowing has been allowed to get away with
deluding itself that ensuring full buoyancy is either sissy, or
unnecessary, or impossible, or shouldn't be done because it doesn't
guarantee total safety. This is sheer stupidity: there are rowers
around the world who would not have died had their boats been fully
buoyant & these counsels of fatuous helplessness will have, as their
sole achievement, the deaths of some more unsuspecting rowers.
Time for less backchat & some real action. Just get on & make those
shells fully buoyant & enjoy the resulting benefit.
Cheers -
Carl
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
That is exactly the point of full buoyancy.
Only if capsized or the boat fractures are you then in trouble. But the
boat or bits of boat to which you are left clinging will have far better
buoyancy than otherwise & will really give you something you can
realistically hope to hold onto, or better still to right & re-enter.
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
What you say makes perfect sense, Rob. You don't send crews out in
conditions they can't be expected to handle. And that is down to each
club's own legal duty of care to its members.
I learned most about watermanship & gained a proper respect for what
water can do if you abuse it, from my own time in sailing & in kayaking
(white water & flat). In both sports, novices get a proper training in
the ways of water & how to handle. In rowing we teach rowers almost
nothing about boat handling & watermanship, so crews can & regularly do
find themselves in all sorts of wholly unnecessary difficulty.
Instead of inventing costly window-dressing & box-ticking ways of
reducing the attraction of coaching, far better to bring everything down
to the simplest & cheapest & most accessible. Using the wonders of the
web, the ARA could & should encourage the evolution of free-on-the-web
training courses (a kind of rowing Open University), not only in the
coaching of rowing technique but also, most importantly, in coxing,
water wisdom & watermanship.
We could then grade coxes & steersmen for relevant ability & knowledge.
But keep the grading structure simple - no more than 2 levels of
attainment should be necessary. And please let's do this, & all other
safety developments, without charging for it. That done, it will be
possible to phase in event classifications, such that, e.g., only those
who have reached grade 2 would be permitted to steer Tideway Heads.
Then we might eliminate the dangerous folly of naive kids being pressed
into service by thoughtless adults. And we'd see fewer incompetent
twits wrecking other crews' races & inept coxes incapable of controlling
their boats.
Or will that, as with full buoyancy, be denied official approval because
the ARA hadn't thought of it first?
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