info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Hull Design, Crowd Sourcing Answers
1,275 views
Skip to first unread message
The Tideway Snail
Jan 24, 2018, 8:13:19 PM1/24/18
to
We all know that we should be more objective in testing boats. It would be great to do things scientifically. Put hulls in towing tanks. “Seat race” different shapes, in varying conditions, at varying power levels and rates. I haven’t quite figured out what my preferred experimental technique would be as making the it “double blind” would be both hard and probably quite dangerous, however I accept that testing, properly, is the way it should be done.
Personally I would love to do that to answer the questions I have. Sadly I do not have access to the equipment, the crews, or the towing tank to do so. And as it turns out, towing tanks are rather expensive.
So my solution is to consult the wisdom of crowds, and see if any consensus can be had on the internet. Please do not turn into a fanboy thread.
Note: generally speaking my questions relate to 4+, 4-, and 8os as these are the most relevant boat classes for UK clubs with an eye to HRR, but internationals please contribute.
Is stiffness always good? Is there a limit?
Large boats being stiff is something that I, and generally speaking “we” as a rowing community, have always taken as a given. And I have no doubt in my mind that to an extent stiffness is something that is required. I’m sure many of us have seen the last of the late 80s Aylings which nowadays have the structural rigidity of a week old sandwich and are horrible in every way.
However is there a limit to this? Is there such a thing as a boat that is too stiff? Amongst the community in the UK there is a general opinion that the preferred, money no object, large boat is yellow, but probably not actually the stiffest shell on the market when new.
Related to this, is all carbon construction actually a selling point? Its notable that a couple of high end manufacturers only sell carbon/kevlar boats but that some sell a range of boats with full carbon construction as the highest grade.
2. Have hull forms actually improved?
Do we believe that over the last 20 years hull forms have actually gotten faster? Things have changed with rigging and features however several shapes available in the 90s are still with us today and observed at decent levels. That Aylings 2- of Pinsent/Redgrave and Pinsent/Cracknell lives on as the VEB mound from Stampfli/Janousek. The Vespoli D hull of Sydney (and a staple of the UK club scene when copied by Ray Sims) is still available, and apparently still relatively popular across the pond. The evolution of the K Empacher 8os was also hardly dramatic. Does the continued existence of these shapes demonstrate that hull form has not progressed?
3. What features in hull shape supposedly make some hulls better at different ratings?
A common comment of certain boats, mostly wing Filippis and BBGs, is that they behave better at certain rates. What particular design features of a boat would make one behave poorly at R18 but well at R38. At the top end we’ve started to see certain crews rate higher over 2k than what would be considered conventional eg) lwt 2- sitting at over R40 for 2k. Is this because of new hull shapes? If we have rate inflation at the top end, does this mean new boats will paddle badly? Is design that allows for good behaviour at high rates necessarily detrimental to good behaviour at paddle?
4. What difference does more or less “rocker” make to a rowing shell?
More a straight forward naval architecture question blended with the movement of CG observed during the rowing stroke. Current production 8o shapes have quite a wide variation in the amount of rocker observed. What does more or less rocker do for the way a rowing boat behaves?
5. What makes certain shells better for Tideway work than others?
There’s a consensus in the UK that Hudsons are not good Tideway boats. Hudson has a decent market share in the UK nowadays, however it is notable that all the significant Tideway clubs have tried Hudsons and decided they do not like them. Some Tideway clubs do have them, Sons, and Latymer Upper, but with the greatest respect these are not particularly high performing compared to some of their neighbours. What features in a boat would make it good in rough water, but not detrimental to flat water performance? For reference for those of you not London based the R Empacher is the staple of the high performance Tideway fleet with the exception of TSS using Filippi F41 and F42s.
6. What makes a shell “comfortable”?
This is building on some work from Biorow showing that athletes produce differing amounts of power in different boats. Why? What makes a boat comfortable and allows the rower to produce more power. Is it things like footplate width as touted by Hudson, or stability and lack of twitchiness?
If anyone has a set of Peach telemetry, access to a consistent crew and a wide range of boats, and would like to perform this experiment I would love to observe.
And for the UK market, particularly those of you out there running clubs:
7. What are you actually buying nowadays and why?
The UK market has changed a fair amount in the past decade. In particular we have far more Hudsons and Filippis (large boats) than we ever used to. Hudsons have done well with the school scene, converting the likes of Hampton which used to be an Empacher club and Eton which was ex-ERB. Filippi has not had a huge amount of traction with the schools, Radley being the obvious exception, however is doing well with clubs such as Agecroft, Cantabridgians, and Lea.
Is there any particular reason why Hudson has been more successful with schools and Filippi more successful with clubs? With universities being somewhere in between. Is this fashion? Does it have anything to do with average crew weights, schoolboys typically buying boats a half size smaller than clubs.
How many of these clubs buying these boats are buying them because they want them, or because the price differential to Empacher has just become too great?
Just to explain, I only discuss these three manufacturers because at the top end the UK market makes other options not financially viable. This is not a statement from me suggesting they’re better than the rest, it's an economic thing where residuals and rental opportunities matter. The rental market doesn’t exist for large boats which are not from one of these three manufacturers. Ultimately that is something that matters for club finances.
Personally I would love to do that to answer the questions I have. Sadly I do not have access to the equipment, the crews, or the towing tank to do so. And as it turns out, towing tanks are rather expensive.
So my solution is to consult the wisdom of crowds, and see if any consensus can be had on the internet. Please do not turn into a fanboy thread.
Note: generally speaking my questions relate to 4+, 4-, and 8os as these are the most relevant boat classes for UK clubs with an eye to HRR, but internationals please contribute.
Is stiffness always good? Is there a limit?
Large boats being stiff is something that I, and generally speaking “we” as a rowing community, have always taken as a given. And I have no doubt in my mind that to an extent stiffness is something that is required. I’m sure many of us have seen the last of the late 80s Aylings which nowadays have the structural rigidity of a week old sandwich and are horrible in every way.
However is there a limit to this? Is there such a thing as a boat that is too stiff? Amongst the community in the UK there is a general opinion that the preferred, money no object, large boat is yellow, but probably not actually the stiffest shell on the market when new.
Related to this, is all carbon construction actually a selling point? Its notable that a couple of high end manufacturers only sell carbon/kevlar boats but that some sell a range of boats with full carbon construction as the highest grade.
2. Have hull forms actually improved?
Do we believe that over the last 20 years hull forms have actually gotten faster? Things have changed with rigging and features however several shapes available in the 90s are still with us today and observed at decent levels. That Aylings 2- of Pinsent/Redgrave and Pinsent/Cracknell lives on as the VEB mound from Stampfli/Janousek. The Vespoli D hull of Sydney (and a staple of the UK club scene when copied by Ray Sims) is still available, and apparently still relatively popular across the pond. The evolution of the K Empacher 8os was also hardly dramatic. Does the continued existence of these shapes demonstrate that hull form has not progressed?
3. What features in hull shape supposedly make some hulls better at different ratings?
A common comment of certain boats, mostly wing Filippis and BBGs, is that they behave better at certain rates. What particular design features of a boat would make one behave poorly at R18 but well at R38. At the top end we’ve started to see certain crews rate higher over 2k than what would be considered conventional eg) lwt 2- sitting at over R40 for 2k. Is this because of new hull shapes? If we have rate inflation at the top end, does this mean new boats will paddle badly? Is design that allows for good behaviour at high rates necessarily detrimental to good behaviour at paddle?
4. What difference does more or less “rocker” make to a rowing shell?
More a straight forward naval architecture question blended with the movement of CG observed during the rowing stroke. Current production 8o shapes have quite a wide variation in the amount of rocker observed. What does more or less rocker do for the way a rowing boat behaves?
5. What makes certain shells better for Tideway work than others?
There’s a consensus in the UK that Hudsons are not good Tideway boats. Hudson has a decent market share in the UK nowadays, however it is notable that all the significant Tideway clubs have tried Hudsons and decided they do not like them. Some Tideway clubs do have them, Sons, and Latymer Upper, but with the greatest respect these are not particularly high performing compared to some of their neighbours. What features in a boat would make it good in rough water, but not detrimental to flat water performance? For reference for those of you not London based the R Empacher is the staple of the high performance Tideway fleet with the exception of TSS using Filippi F41 and F42s.
6. What makes a shell “comfortable”?
This is building on some work from Biorow showing that athletes produce differing amounts of power in different boats. Why? What makes a boat comfortable and allows the rower to produce more power. Is it things like footplate width as touted by Hudson, or stability and lack of twitchiness?
If anyone has a set of Peach telemetry, access to a consistent crew and a wide range of boats, and would like to perform this experiment I would love to observe.
And for the UK market, particularly those of you out there running clubs:
7. What are you actually buying nowadays and why?
The UK market has changed a fair amount in the past decade. In particular we have far more Hudsons and Filippis (large boats) than we ever used to. Hudsons have done well with the school scene, converting the likes of Hampton which used to be an Empacher club and Eton which was ex-ERB. Filippi has not had a huge amount of traction with the schools, Radley being the obvious exception, however is doing well with clubs such as Agecroft, Cantabridgians, and Lea.
Is there any particular reason why Hudson has been more successful with schools and Filippi more successful with clubs? With universities being somewhere in between. Is this fashion? Does it have anything to do with average crew weights, schoolboys typically buying boats a half size smaller than clubs.
How many of these clubs buying these boats are buying them because they want them, or because the price differential to Empacher has just become too great?
Just to explain, I only discuss these three manufacturers because at the top end the UK market makes other options not financially viable. This is not a statement from me suggesting they’re better than the rest, it's an economic thing where residuals and rental opportunities matter. The rental market doesn’t exist for large boats which are not from one of these three manufacturers. Ultimately that is something that matters for club finances.
Henry Law
Jan 25, 2018, 7:40:05 AM1/25/18
to
On 25/01/18 01:13, The Tideway Snail wrote:
> So my solution is to consult the wisdom of crowds
I have little knowledge to contribute, Snaily, but I'm really looking
> So my solution is to consult the wisdom of crowds
forward to watching the thread. Great idea!
--
Henry Law n e w s @ l a w s h o u s e . o r g
Manchester, England
marko....@gmail.com
Jan 25, 2018, 3:29:49 PM1/25/18
to
I too have little to contribute but am hoping Carl will give his views on your interesting questions.
drdavidl...@gmail.com
Jan 25, 2018, 6:18:07 PM1/25/18
to
What are you trying to figure out? Which shapes make boats quicker or how the heck Hudson is doing well in the UK? Snail are you Martin McElroy?
The Snail
Jan 25, 2018, 7:32:59 PM1/25/18
to
On Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 11:18:07 PM UTC, drdavidl...@gmail.com wrote:
> What are you trying to figure out? Which shapes make boats quicker or how the heck Hudson is doing well in the UK? Snail are you Martin McElroy?
Neither. Call it pure intellectual curiosity.
> What are you trying to figure out? Which shapes make boats quicker or how the heck Hudson is doing well in the UK? Snail are you Martin McElroy?
Seeing as I'm looking for opinions I may as well give my own. I believe across 2k flat the time difference caused by these shells in question is probably minimal. For testing I do believe there is adaptation time so running boats back to back doesn't work. They feel different so they probably need to be rowed different. This sort of makes any testing rather complicated. I do believe comfort matters, and so ideally if I considered two boats to be the same speed I would pick the more comfortable/less wallowy/less twitchy one.
I'm involved with a couple of clubs and club committees. The fastest boat is actually not that relevant to boat buying, lots of rowers seem to think it is but it just isn't for even the top end clubs. You pick a boat that you like, then look at longevity, residuals, and maintenance. That last potential half a percent of speed that may or may not exist, quite frankly, meh. Until someone can prove it, it's about long term planning as this is a not cheap asset and you're going to look to keep for at least 6 years.
How the heck are Hudson doing well in the UK? Personal opinion is it's a decent product priced very competitively. In my experience they've carved out a decent share with affordable ex-worlds boats, like Filippi. That and Empacher's pricing. I suspect we would see pretty much no Filippi and Hudson large boats in the UK if all three were the same price and the market conditions stayed the same.
Am I McElroy, no. I'm very much UK rowing community. If he really wants to sell Vespos in the UK he would get a better connected salesman who is Thames Valley based rather than Devon. He would get said salesman to pitch his ex demo boats at the same price point or below Hudson and Filippi, not above. And he would open up a repair shop like Hudson have at Taplow, naturally not economical to begin with, but perhaps have a certified repairer like the relationship between Swift and South West Rowing Services. That makes a real difference for clubs. I wonder if the member of this forum who has to maintain a couple of older Vespos up north would like to chime in with his woes about keeping them going with no support?
Having said that, I doubt Vespos will break in anyway. With day job hat on as a business analyst I would tell him not to bother. It's not a reflection of the quality of the product. I've not seen a new one lately so I am in no position to comment on the boats themselves but the link between the quality of the product and sales is not as direct as some people want it to be. Unfortunately for Vespoli they are unable to affordably push boats in to the UK for sale or HRR rental. If they had trailerfuls of ex-Worlds/ex-U23 boats like the competition to flood the market and generate a minimum viable population of Vespolis in the UK that would be a different matter. But they don't, so tough cookies really.
Peter
Jan 26, 2018, 3:03:16 AM1/26/18
to
Put me down as an old fart (as in former athlete returning to training) 'cos it's more than 45 years since I raced and doubtless the following comments will be dated too.
Boat comfort. Given two boats set up 'exactly' the same to include shoe types, stretcher angles and relevent heights/distances then the only factors left for comfort should really be flex and the psychology/prejudice of the crew. I also find it hard to believe that there is enough difference in hull shapes that that could affect comfort in 4 or 8
Testing for flex with a crew would be too subjective to include longitudinal,lateral and torsional.
Most crews I was in adapted to each other (probably subconsciously) in balancing the boat and correcting their own and each others balance errors and variations in quite where they threw the power in during a stroke. So getting into a boat with subtle changes in flex could take a little re-adjustment. It's always easier to blame the equipment. How would you double-blind trial a crew into different boats.
In most hobbies I've been involved in everyone looks for that 'edge'. I recall an excellent archer fletching his arrows with false eyelashes just for a laugh. He won the tournament (as he would have done with any other bit of kit) and the next week several competitors had swapped their fletchings for false eyelashes, mini low profile fins and all sorts of new and crazy ideas to 'improve' their equipment. I once mixed a little whiskey and ginger into an empty vinegar bottle for a nip on a cold day. I shot better than usual and told everyone the vinegar made my eyes water and cleared vision for the shot. Yup - there were folk drinking vinegar the next week.
I don't recall the link but some time ago I found a video comparing carbon, carbon-kevlar and kevlar alone with some decent math and measurement that concluded that the mix was the worst option - think of it as the fibres fighting each other...?
I suggest it's not just rock but also bounce during a stroke - however cleverly you stick the blade in and pull it out and (of course) everyone is perfectly horizontal in their pull..so perhaps the underside shape of the hull might make a difference in how it bounces and rides livelier or choppier water after all?
Boat comfort. Given two boats set up 'exactly' the same to include shoe types, stretcher angles and relevent heights/distances then the only factors left for comfort should really be flex and the psychology/prejudice of the crew. I also find it hard to believe that there is enough difference in hull shapes that that could affect comfort in 4 or 8
Testing for flex with a crew would be too subjective to include longitudinal,lateral and torsional.
Most crews I was in adapted to each other (probably subconsciously) in balancing the boat and correcting their own and each others balance errors and variations in quite where they threw the power in during a stroke. So getting into a boat with subtle changes in flex could take a little re-adjustment. It's always easier to blame the equipment. How would you double-blind trial a crew into different boats.
In most hobbies I've been involved in everyone looks for that 'edge'. I recall an excellent archer fletching his arrows with false eyelashes just for a laugh. He won the tournament (as he would have done with any other bit of kit) and the next week several competitors had swapped their fletchings for false eyelashes, mini low profile fins and all sorts of new and crazy ideas to 'improve' their equipment. I once mixed a little whiskey and ginger into an empty vinegar bottle for a nip on a cold day. I shot better than usual and told everyone the vinegar made my eyes water and cleared vision for the shot. Yup - there were folk drinking vinegar the next week.
I don't recall the link but some time ago I found a video comparing carbon, carbon-kevlar and kevlar alone with some decent math and measurement that concluded that the mix was the worst option - think of it as the fibres fighting each other...?
I suggest it's not just rock but also bounce during a stroke - however cleverly you stick the blade in and pull it out and (of course) everyone is perfectly horizontal in their pull..so perhaps the underside shape of the hull might make a difference in how it bounces and rides livelier or choppier water after all?
carl
Jan 26, 2018, 3:03:18 PM1/26/18
to
before, perhaps, responding.
However, I deplore the snarky attack from Lieberhart. It contributes
nothing beyond a tasteless reminder of the Usenet flame wars of 3
decades ago. RSR has been free from such footling stupidity for most of
the last 2 decades (Sully may correct me).
Nothing so diminishes a contributor as their presuming, from behind a
veil of anonymity, the worst of someone they don't know & have probably
never met. I worked with Martin McElroy when he was a GBR International
coach in 2000. I regard him as a good friend & an intelligent,
honourable man. That bile, from someone presuming to call himself "Dr",
is the pits.
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...@carldouglasrowing.com Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
URLs: carldouglasrowing.com & now on Facebook @ CarlDouglasRacingShells
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
drdavidl...@gmail.com
Jan 26, 2018, 4:47:58 PM1/26/18
to
Carl forgive me please.
I didn't mean to ruin this thread but this is a question that exists on many forums which ultimately devolves into "which builder is best." And usually the "facts" people use are either based on rumor or complete bias.
I wasn't trying to insult anyone but you've clearly thrown multiple insults my way. Ill run away now. You've won this internet debate.
I didn't mean to ruin this thread but this is a question that exists on many forums which ultimately devolves into "which builder is best." And usually the "facts" people use are either based on rumor or complete bias.
I wasn't trying to insult anyone but you've clearly thrown multiple insults my way. Ill run away now. You've won this internet debate.
carl
Jan 27, 2018, 1:30:58 PM1/27/18
to
Here's the email response which I sent yesterday to this poster. As it
got no response, I'm posting it here:
"Not so fast!
"You chuck insults clearly intended to injure a good guy who is unlikely
to know you've done so but, when called for that underhand trick, you
scamper off shouting that you're the innocent victim.
"It is never about winning, here in RSR, nor about conflict, but about
learning from & sharing with each other. Had it never occurred to you
that good manners cost nothing, & they "makyth man"."
The Snail
Jan 27, 2018, 6:27:31 PM1/27/18
to
I’m very deliberately trying to detach this topic from the x boat is best r/RedditRowing type of thread that just ends up with college boys repeatedly screaming USP. Not saying the USP isn’t, just I don’t want it to go this way.
I’m also trying for it not to become a what should I buy thread. As I’ve said, I’ve had the misfortune of sitting on committees and during that time have bought a lot of boats for a lot of different clubs. It’s not purely what boat is “best”. For disclosure in the past couple of years I’ve been involved in the purchase new or ex-demo 1 Chinese boat, 5 Italian, 2 German, 2 British and 3 Canadian (ish? I’ve lost count). The various clubs had their own, valid, reasons for their choices. I am not here to beat the drum for my preferred manufacturer.
In addition it assumes there is a “best” boat. If we take a very simplistic view of things, and assume that overall length is a balance of wetted surface area and reduction of porpoising, this would suggest that the ideal, “perfect”, length of hull is a dependant on the crew’s stroke length, or perhaps more accurately distance of CG movement. I’m sure my understanding of naval architecture here is flawed, this is not my field, however I do believe the theoretical “best” is crew and style dependant, therefore meaning there isn't not just one best boat.
The questions are asked purely for the sake of curiosity. I already know what is on my boat buying list next anyway. In the real world economics win out over theoretical gains. Alas, when I get to make boat buying decisions for a national squad with no monetary pressure...
I’m also trying for it not to become a what should I buy thread. As I’ve said, I’ve had the misfortune of sitting on committees and during that time have bought a lot of boats for a lot of different clubs. It’s not purely what boat is “best”. For disclosure in the past couple of years I’ve been involved in the purchase new or ex-demo 1 Chinese boat, 5 Italian, 2 German, 2 British and 3 Canadian (ish? I’ve lost count). The various clubs had their own, valid, reasons for their choices. I am not here to beat the drum for my preferred manufacturer.
In addition it assumes there is a “best” boat. If we take a very simplistic view of things, and assume that overall length is a balance of wetted surface area and reduction of porpoising, this would suggest that the ideal, “perfect”, length of hull is a dependant on the crew’s stroke length, or perhaps more accurately distance of CG movement. I’m sure my understanding of naval architecture here is flawed, this is not my field, however I do believe the theoretical “best” is crew and style dependant, therefore meaning there isn't not just one best boat.
The questions are asked purely for the sake of curiosity. I already know what is on my boat buying list next anyway. In the real world economics win out over theoretical gains. Alas, when I get to make boat buying decisions for a national squad with no monetary pressure...
drdavidl...@gmail.com
Jan 28, 2018, 9:08:22 AM1/28/18
to
Carl,
Thanks for posting the email you sent me to this group. My apologies for not getting back to you right away as I unfortunately do not focus 100% of my time on these boards or my emails from you.
I'll let you continue your crusade against me and will welcome more insults from you.
In the meantime I'll actually now try and answer Snail's questions to help get this board back on track.
On stiffness - great question.
Let's start with fatigue over time. I would say all brands are stiffer today than they were 15 years ago AND they are lasting longer. The availability of better composites, and improved knowledge of different techniques in using prepreg or wet lay up has certainly contributed to boats lasting longer/customers being more satisfied over a longer period of time. A very time consuming but interesting project would be to record the longitudinal and torsional stiffness of a handful of boats leaving their manufacturers and track those measurements over the course of their competitive lives and see if there is any correlation to success. If they get trained on X amount of hours per week with a certain average crew weight Are they still being raced by the top HRR crew in the club after 5 years? How much has the stiffness changed? Did the oldest boat with a certain stiffness beat a newer boat that is assumed to be stiffer?
As for does a stiffer boat mean faster crew / better results? I'd certainly say yes if we compare any boat from the last 10 years to a Fiberglass/Kevlar hull with wooden gunwales from the 70s/80s and a bit into the 90s. I can remember rowing in those 8s and it felt like the boat was down on both port and starboard. At that point I don't think the shape of the hull would matter much if it were racing against a stiffer/newer boat.
As for comparing newer, I'd say find a graduate student in biomechanics maybe? I just don't think it will be as obvious if you try to go beyond athlete feedback. Like I said earlier, every builder is making better boats than they were 15 years ago.
As for the other questions I have more to consider and will chime in later.
Thanks for posting the email you sent me to this group. My apologies for not getting back to you right away as I unfortunately do not focus 100% of my time on these boards or my emails from you.
I'll let you continue your crusade against me and will welcome more insults from you.
In the meantime I'll actually now try and answer Snail's questions to help get this board back on track.
On stiffness - great question.
Let's start with fatigue over time. I would say all brands are stiffer today than they were 15 years ago AND they are lasting longer. The availability of better composites, and improved knowledge of different techniques in using prepreg or wet lay up has certainly contributed to boats lasting longer/customers being more satisfied over a longer period of time. A very time consuming but interesting project would be to record the longitudinal and torsional stiffness of a handful of boats leaving their manufacturers and track those measurements over the course of their competitive lives and see if there is any correlation to success. If they get trained on X amount of hours per week with a certain average crew weight Are they still being raced by the top HRR crew in the club after 5 years? How much has the stiffness changed? Did the oldest boat with a certain stiffness beat a newer boat that is assumed to be stiffer?
As for does a stiffer boat mean faster crew / better results? I'd certainly say yes if we compare any boat from the last 10 years to a Fiberglass/Kevlar hull with wooden gunwales from the 70s/80s and a bit into the 90s. I can remember rowing in those 8s and it felt like the boat was down on both port and starboard. At that point I don't think the shape of the hull would matter much if it were racing against a stiffer/newer boat.
As for comparing newer, I'd say find a graduate student in biomechanics maybe? I just don't think it will be as obvious if you try to go beyond athlete feedback. Like I said earlier, every builder is making better boats than they were 15 years ago.
As for the other questions I have more to consider and will chime in later.
gsl...@gmail.com
Jan 28, 2018, 9:33:27 AM1/28/18
to
On Saturday, January 27, 2018 at 3:27:31 PM UTC-8, The Snail wrote:
> I’m very deliberately trying to detach this topic from the x boat is best r/RedditRowing type of thread that just ends up with college boys repeatedly screaming USP. Not saying the USP isn’t, just I don’t want it to go this way.
I find this amusing because on another forum (not Reddit) there was a thread that where a number of people we insisting that the USP was not good and clubs who bought them were not using them. The explanation was they were too stiff.
> I’m very deliberately trying to detach this topic from the x boat is best r/RedditRowing type of thread that just ends up with college boys repeatedly screaming USP. Not saying the USP isn’t, just I don’t want it to go this way.
carl
Jan 28, 2018, 10:09:43 AM1/28/18
to
On 28/01/2018 14:08, drdavidl...@gmail.com wrote:
> Carl,
>
> Thanks for posting the email you sent me to this group. My apologies for not getting back to you right away as I unfortunately do not focus 100% of my time on these boards or my emails from you.
>
> I'll let you continue your crusade against me and will welcome more insults from you.
>
> In the meantime I'll actually now try and answer Snail's questions to help get this board back on track.
"Back on track?" "Crusade against me?" "More insults from you?"
> Carl,
>
> Thanks for posting the email you sent me to this group. My apologies for not getting back to you right away as I unfortunately do not focus 100% of my time on these boards or my emails from you.
>
> I'll let you continue your crusade against me and will welcome more insults from you.
>
> In the meantime I'll actually now try and answer Snail's questions to help get this board back on track.
Do grow up, stop pretending to take the high ground, quit the petulance
& stop the accusations - with which _you_ (& no one else) tried to
derail this thread from the outset. OK?
And apologies to The Snail & towards Martin McElroy wouldn't go amiss.
Good manners nothing.
The Snail
Jan 28, 2018, 11:09:42 AM1/28/18
to
As an aside in very informal testing I've done on a sample size of one of each boat when under 2 years old (I'm not going to claim this as any proof at all) in longitudinal stiffness S8.31>F42=R86(cut down). Note the differences were small, and you could probably come up with compelling arguments against my experimental technique and critique choice of weight and trestle measurement. Basically I wouldn't make too much/anything of this data point.
Nor am I certain more rigidity makes a difference. I accept some rigidity definitely makes a difference, but does that make more always better?
The Snail
Jan 28, 2018, 11:40:03 AM1/28/18
to
On Sunday, January 28, 2018 at 2:08:22 PM UTC, drdavidl...@gmail.com wrote:
[CUT]
Janouseks: Some of the shapes have been updated, but until very recently kept the same construction, and had composite ribs. Not considered top end, but have a very useful place in the world as club boats.
Aylings Olympians and ERBs: Carbon Kevlar boats with marine ply ribs.
Ray Sims: Carbon boats with Carbon U-notch channel ribs.
Empacher: Carbon Kevlar with Carbon encased composite ribs.
A couple of years later we got an influx of Vespolis and Resolutes whilst the dollar was low. Filippis larger than a double were somewhat of a novelty back then.
The carbon ribbed boats of the Sydney-Athens cycle were not floppy. You can still find some now of that generation which have aged rather well. I have a quite strong suspicion that one in good condition, with good straight riggers wouldn't hurt a top end crew at all if raced at HRR in a few months time. Indeed I have looked at buying one very recently from 2004 that has very few miles on it with a set of Carl's riggers on which I would consider to be every part a top boat today, even if out of fashion without wings. Also bear in mind, whilst the construction may have changed, the shape is still being made by that manufacturer and winning a majority of international medals in that boatclass.
I don't remember the plywood ribbed boats being particularly soft when new either. Nowadays they tend to be a bit of a state, particularly the ones stored outside, older club boats tend not to be that well looked after which probably means they've suffered a bit. Its hard to remember what they felt like back then, and dissociate how they feel now.
I'm afraid I'm not old enough to have seen 90's and before boats new, and only saw them in the 2000s onwards. I have come across some terrible late 80s fibreglass with the remains of plywood ribs boats recently and they are really now circling the drain. Did they suffer from "down on both sides syndrome" when new?
Having said they are circling the drain I suspect their expected service life wasn't supposed to be this long and maybe people in 30 years time will be saying that about our current crop of carbon wing shells.
[CUT]
>
> On stiffness - great question.
>
> Let's start with fatigue over time. I would say all brands are stiffer today than they were 15 years ago AND they are lasting longer. The availability of better composites, and improved knowledge of different techniques in using prepreg or wet lay up has certainly contributed to boats lasting longer/customers being more satisfied over a longer period of time. A very time consuming but interesting project would be to record the longitudinal and torsional stiffness of a handful of boats leaving their manufacturers and track those measurements over the course of their competitive lives and see if there is any correlation to success. If they get trained on X amount of hours per week with a certain average crew weight Are they still being raced by the top HRR crew in the club after 5 years? How much has the stiffness changed? Did the oldest boat with a certain stiffness beat a newer boat that is assumed to be stiffer?
>
> As for does a stiffer boat mean faster crew / better results? I'd certainly say yes if we compare any boat from the last 10 years to a Fiberglass/Kevlar hull with wooden gunwales from the 70s/80s and a bit into the 90s. I can remember rowing in those 8s and it felt like the boat was down on both port and starboard. At that point I don't think the shape of the hull would matter much if it were racing against a stiffer/newer boat.
>
> As for comparing newer, I'd say find a graduate student in biomechanics maybe? I just don't think it will be as obvious if you try to go beyond athlete feedback. Like I said earlier, every builder is making better boats than they were 15 years ago.
>
> As for the other questions I have more to consider and will chime in later.
If I consider what was available new 15 years ago in the UK we had (all three stay/rarely carbon 2 stay):
> On stiffness - great question.
>
> Let's start with fatigue over time. I would say all brands are stiffer today than they were 15 years ago AND they are lasting longer. The availability of better composites, and improved knowledge of different techniques in using prepreg or wet lay up has certainly contributed to boats lasting longer/customers being more satisfied over a longer period of time. A very time consuming but interesting project would be to record the longitudinal and torsional stiffness of a handful of boats leaving their manufacturers and track those measurements over the course of their competitive lives and see if there is any correlation to success. If they get trained on X amount of hours per week with a certain average crew weight Are they still being raced by the top HRR crew in the club after 5 years? How much has the stiffness changed? Did the oldest boat with a certain stiffness beat a newer boat that is assumed to be stiffer?
>
> As for does a stiffer boat mean faster crew / better results? I'd certainly say yes if we compare any boat from the last 10 years to a Fiberglass/Kevlar hull with wooden gunwales from the 70s/80s and a bit into the 90s. I can remember rowing in those 8s and it felt like the boat was down on both port and starboard. At that point I don't think the shape of the hull would matter much if it were racing against a stiffer/newer boat.
>
> As for comparing newer, I'd say find a graduate student in biomechanics maybe? I just don't think it will be as obvious if you try to go beyond athlete feedback. Like I said earlier, every builder is making better boats than they were 15 years ago.
>
> As for the other questions I have more to consider and will chime in later.
Janouseks: Some of the shapes have been updated, but until very recently kept the same construction, and had composite ribs. Not considered top end, but have a very useful place in the world as club boats.
Aylings Olympians and ERBs: Carbon Kevlar boats with marine ply ribs.
Ray Sims: Carbon boats with Carbon U-notch channel ribs.
Empacher: Carbon Kevlar with Carbon encased composite ribs.
A couple of years later we got an influx of Vespolis and Resolutes whilst the dollar was low. Filippis larger than a double were somewhat of a novelty back then.
The carbon ribbed boats of the Sydney-Athens cycle were not floppy. You can still find some now of that generation which have aged rather well. I have a quite strong suspicion that one in good condition, with good straight riggers wouldn't hurt a top end crew at all if raced at HRR in a few months time. Indeed I have looked at buying one very recently from 2004 that has very few miles on it with a set of Carl's riggers on which I would consider to be every part a top boat today, even if out of fashion without wings. Also bear in mind, whilst the construction may have changed, the shape is still being made by that manufacturer and winning a majority of international medals in that boatclass.
I don't remember the plywood ribbed boats being particularly soft when new either. Nowadays they tend to be a bit of a state, particularly the ones stored outside, older club boats tend not to be that well looked after which probably means they've suffered a bit. Its hard to remember what they felt like back then, and dissociate how they feel now.
I'm afraid I'm not old enough to have seen 90's and before boats new, and only saw them in the 2000s onwards. I have come across some terrible late 80s fibreglass with the remains of plywood ribs boats recently and they are really now circling the drain. Did they suffer from "down on both sides syndrome" when new?
Having said they are circling the drain I suspect their expected service life wasn't supposed to be this long and maybe people in 30 years time will be saying that about our current crop of carbon wing shells.
drdavidl...@gmail.com
Jan 28, 2018, 12:19:22 PM1/28/18
to
"Having said they are circling the drain I suspect their expected service life wasn't supposed to be this long and maybe people in 30 years time will be saying that about our current crop of carbon wing shells."
I totally agree with you. Who knows what awaits us in the future but one thing we know is that all the major manufacturers seem to be doing their best to push the envelope and make boats better and in turn they will end up lasting longer as well. Just depends on how quickly some of the new high end fibers become affordable for boat builders and not just the aerospace industry.
I'm sure this next comment will stir more debate. When they started using wing riggers on 8s back in the early 2000s there were programs in the who had difficulty balancing the boat and the source of that issue was the claim that the wing riggers made the boat stiffer. It was considered that there was significantly less torsional force exerted on the hull with wings vs the side mount Rigger. If this is true it's funny to think how that was a complaint now but wing riggers today are pretty much the norm!
Message has been deleted
madmar...@gmail.com
Jan 29, 2018, 4:57:28 AM1/29/18
to
On Sunday, 28 January 2018 15:09:43 UTC, carl wrote:
>
> "Back on track?" "Crusade against me?" "More insults from you?"
>
> Do grow up, stop pretending to take the high ground, quit the petulance
> & stop the accusations - with which _you_ (& no one else) tried to
> derail this thread from the outset. OK?
>
> And apologies to The Snail & towards Martin McElroy wouldn't go amiss.
> Good manners nothing.
>
> Carl
>
Good manners?
>
> "Back on track?" "Crusade against me?" "More insults from you?"
>
> Do grow up, stop pretending to take the high ground, quit the petulance
> & stop the accusations - with which _you_ (& no one else) tried to
> derail this thread from the outset. OK?
>
> And apologies to The Snail & towards Martin McElroy wouldn't go amiss.
> Good manners nothing.
>
> Carl
>
Hmmmm....
carl
Jan 29, 2018, 7:29:32 AM1/29/18
to
who for many years has been a thoroughly decent servant to our sport, is
"good manners", then I too would say "Hmmmm".
Apologies from the author of those insults would cost them nothing &
certainly be welcome. But I'm not holding my breath.
madmar...@gmail.com
Jan 29, 2018, 8:26:01 AM1/29/18
to
I was alluding to something else, but perhaps I was too subtle.
For anyone else wondering, it's a private joke between Carl and I.
For anyone else wondering, it's a private joke between Carl and I.
gsl...@gmail.com
Jan 29, 2018, 1:56:11 PM1/29/18
to
On Sunday, January 28, 2018 at 8:09:42 AM UTC-8, The Snail wrote:
> I've seem this too. I'll be honest, I'm not convinced by the it's too stiff argument for modern 8os. I could believe in it for some single skin singles, which seem rather out of fashion at the . moment, but not double skin large boats.
I'm highly skeptical of the too stiff argument for any boat, especially singles. Oars that are too stiff can be problematic depending on the individual, so using stiff riggers instead of soft ones can cause problems, but that is not the fault of the riggers. Soft boats can be easier to row, but the solution is to row better not get soft boats.
> I've seem this too. I'll be honest, I'm not convinced by the it's too stiff argument for modern 8os. I could believe in it for some single skin singles, which seem rather out of fashion at the . moment, but not double skin large boats.
A few years ago we got a new Hudson quad. A significant step up from what we had been rowing. The first time out our coached asked how we like the boat. We were a bit hesitant in answering. He laughed and said he hadn't ever seen us row so badly. He did straighten us out by the end of the row. He also told us that a team. (probably Cal or CRC) recently got a new empacher 8+, and the first few rows in it were atrocious. He laughed again and said "$40K+ and they just went slower."
>
> Nor am I certain more rigidity makes a difference. I accept some rigidity definitely makes a difference, but does that make more always better?
madmar...@gmail.com
Jan 29, 2018, 4:31:29 PM1/29/18
to
My experience of stiff boats was the jump between old timber eights and more modern honeycomb cored boats. Our club had both and you occasionally found yourself swapping between the two during a training camp.
The old timber boats visibly flexed. Not just down the length of the boat (ie down on both sides at once!), but also at each seat depending on the power of an individual. The more modern boat did not do anywhere near as much flex (yes, all eights move a bit with a crew in them).
What seemed to happen (or at least my pet theory) is that the timber boat was more 'forgiving' of bad technique and absorbed the rough edges of the crew. Someone slightly out of time; 8 different power curves; the one rower do does that 'thing' at the finish; you can picture it. The more stiff boat didn't hide these rowing faults - you felt it much more as it jarred you. Elite or well practiced crews didn't notice this so much, but novice and intermediate crews (ie those with more errors) suffered when rowing the 'better' boat.
A new boat took time to get used to.
Once mastered, a stiffer boat seems more responsive.
The smaller the boat, the less of an issue it was.
The material isn't the deciding factor: the design and quality of construction play as much, if not more, of a role.
The old timber boats visibly flexed. Not just down the length of the boat (ie down on both sides at once!), but also at each seat depending on the power of an individual. The more modern boat did not do anywhere near as much flex (yes, all eights move a bit with a crew in them).
What seemed to happen (or at least my pet theory) is that the timber boat was more 'forgiving' of bad technique and absorbed the rough edges of the crew. Someone slightly out of time; 8 different power curves; the one rower do does that 'thing' at the finish; you can picture it. The more stiff boat didn't hide these rowing faults - you felt it much more as it jarred you. Elite or well practiced crews didn't notice this so much, but novice and intermediate crews (ie those with more errors) suffered when rowing the 'better' boat.
A new boat took time to get used to.
Once mastered, a stiffer boat seems more responsive.
The smaller the boat, the less of an issue it was.
The material isn't the deciding factor: the design and quality of construction play as much, if not more, of a role.
The Snail
Jan 29, 2018, 4:43:07 PM1/29/18
to
Both manufacturers are now gone and there I can't think of modern single skin boats that are as soft as those were but it's interesting they existed. As an aside, they are horrible to repair, possibly why no one makes boats that way any more.
gsl...@gmail.com
Jan 29, 2018, 6:45:25 PM1/29/18
to
>
> I don't know if you had these in the US, as I'm guessing these wouldn't have been imported. Through the 90s in the UK we had two manufacturers, Ray Sims and Burgashell, who made singles with plywood ribs and soft single skin hulls. I'm not actually sure what the hulls were made out of but if you prodded them they would flex locally under very little pressure. The Sims actually got good adoption among competitive scullers. They feel noticeably different on the water from double skin boats. No idea about the impact on speed but they did feel different.
>
> Both manufacturers are now gone and there I can't think of modern single skin boats that are as soft as those were but it's interesting they existed. As an aside, they are horrible to repair, possibly why no one makes boats that way any more.
FluidDesigns singles are single wall carbon fiber. The skin is flexible.
> I don't know if you had these in the US, as I'm guessing these wouldn't have been imported. Through the 90s in the UK we had two manufacturers, Ray Sims and Burgashell, who made singles with plywood ribs and soft single skin hulls. I'm not actually sure what the hulls were made out of but if you prodded them they would flex locally under very little pressure. The Sims actually got good adoption among competitive scullers. They feel noticeably different on the water from double skin boats. No idea about the impact on speed but they did feel different.
>
> Both manufacturers are now gone and there I can't think of modern single skin boats that are as soft as those were but it's interesting they existed. As an aside, they are horrible to repair, possibly why no one makes boats that way any more.
The skin is attached to ribs/frame/support structure, which holds the overall shape and transmits the force. The rigidity frame is entirely separate from the flexibility or the skin.
carl
Jan 29, 2018, 9:06:08 PM1/29/18
to
On 28/01/2018 19:18, yellow...@gmail.com wrote:
> Carl..... why can’t you just realise that you are the main killer of this forum, so many people read it in the U.K. community, but will never dare to comment back, as you style yourself as the headmaster of the forum where most people’s knowledge is second to yours. Then there is also the constant sales pitches questioning why people don’t buy your equipment, why not make every boat class rather than just small boats, then, you would gain a lot of credibility and reputation with a product, rather than the endless essays explain why nameless manufactures are doing things wrong.
> Please, so the sake of free thinking, just let conversation happen somewhat naturally before barking at people with there mistakes!
>
I challenged a calculated insult against a good guy, so you pretend to
patronise me. A public insult to a personal friend should not go
unchallenged. Would you object if someone spat in a friend's face as
you walk down the street, or would you pretend it hadn't happened?
You hide behind anonymity. I don't. So why would I take you seriously?
Who knows - you might even be the good "Dr's" sock-puppet.
The science of rowing interests me & I study it. In science, facts and
logic matter. I raise & respond to topics where I may have something to
contribute. I seek to learn or provide explanations. When I have good
cause, I question or explore points made, and otherwise just watch &
learn. Naturally I welcome honest queries, challenges & alternative
interpretations. And when I screw up I own up. There's increasingly
the view that opinion is as valid as expertise, regardless of evidence
or science. That's not a view I share.
Another aspect of rowing which closely concerns me is safety. That
makes me troublesome to a few. But when you've lost friends through the
persistent folly & neglect of others, when you know others who've also
lost someone, when you've researched the subject and know how to prevent
this, when you then see inconvenient truths being covered up or worse,
just to protect blazered backs, then the gutless who walk away.
So you, apparently a newbie here & evidently still wet behind the ears,
find this inconvenient? Tough! But, when you erect a set of straw men
in your obvious attempt to discredit me, I know you for a fool.
Try a couple of analogies:
1. Should a good fiddle & viola maker branch into cellos & basses, just
as you think I & my colleagues should branch from singles, pairs and
doubles into fours & eights? Does his focus on the violin end diminish
him, or prove him ignorant of the design & workings of those other
strings, even though he also makes accessories which demonstrably
improve their performance? And should he ignore the science which spans
that instrumental family? Pull the other one!
2. Should Morgan Motor Company, founded in 1910, also build saloon cars,
pick-ups & F1 cars to prove to you that they're real car makers? Tell
that to the good people in Malvern & see how you fare. I recall someone
who arrived at Empacher's door some 20 years back & told them them they
were doing it wrong, that he knew better, that they must change! They
showed him the door - & seem to have survived.
Cheers -
> Carl..... why can’t you just realise that you are the main killer of this forum, so many people read it in the U.K. community, but will never dare to comment back, as you style yourself as the headmaster of the forum where most people’s knowledge is second to yours. Then there is also the constant sales pitches questioning why people don’t buy your equipment, why not make every boat class rather than just small boats, then, you would gain a lot of credibility and reputation with a product, rather than the endless essays explain why nameless manufactures are doing things wrong.
> Please, so the sake of free thinking, just let conversation happen somewhat naturally before barking at people with there mistakes!
>
I challenged a calculated insult against a good guy, so you pretend to
patronise me. A public insult to a personal friend should not go
unchallenged. Would you object if someone spat in a friend's face as
you walk down the street, or would you pretend it hadn't happened?
You hide behind anonymity. I don't. So why would I take you seriously?
Who knows - you might even be the good "Dr's" sock-puppet.
The science of rowing interests me & I study it. In science, facts and
logic matter. I raise & respond to topics where I may have something to
contribute. I seek to learn or provide explanations. When I have good
cause, I question or explore points made, and otherwise just watch &
learn. Naturally I welcome honest queries, challenges & alternative
interpretations. And when I screw up I own up. There's increasingly
the view that opinion is as valid as expertise, regardless of evidence
or science. That's not a view I share.
Another aspect of rowing which closely concerns me is safety. That
makes me troublesome to a few. But when you've lost friends through the
persistent folly & neglect of others, when you know others who've also
lost someone, when you've researched the subject and know how to prevent
this, when you then see inconvenient truths being covered up or worse,
just to protect blazered backs, then the gutless who walk away.
So you, apparently a newbie here & evidently still wet behind the ears,
find this inconvenient? Tough! But, when you erect a set of straw men
in your obvious attempt to discredit me, I know you for a fool.
Try a couple of analogies:
1. Should a good fiddle & viola maker branch into cellos & basses, just
as you think I & my colleagues should branch from singles, pairs and
doubles into fours & eights? Does his focus on the violin end diminish
him, or prove him ignorant of the design & workings of those other
strings, even though he also makes accessories which demonstrably
improve their performance? And should he ignore the science which spans
that instrumental family? Pull the other one!
2. Should Morgan Motor Company, founded in 1910, also build saloon cars,
pick-ups & F1 cars to prove to you that they're real car makers? Tell
that to the good people in Malvern & see how you fare. I recall someone
who arrived at Empacher's door some 20 years back & told them them they
were doing it wrong, that he knew better, that they must change! They
showed him the door - & seem to have survived.
Cheers -
drdavidl...@gmail.com
Jan 29, 2018, 10:03:28 PM1/29/18
to
Okay just a few points here.
I don't know how I insulted snail (anonymous profile? If not please correct me) by asking if it were someone who else in the rowing industry.
I didn't use any personal insults - not nearly as much as Carl's responses have at least - and my post was simply a question based on the fact that I don't think it is far fetched for someone who has recently taken the helm of what was a once successful international company with the goal of improving it. Is it unfair to assume that someone would want to know the rowing community's opinion on some important facts regarding the success of boats? Was the issue that I assumed that individual would do it from a perspective of anonymity? If so, then again, Carl you are right and I'm forever sorry.
Maybe my knee jerk reactionary post was in poor taste as Carl quickly jumped on me for it but I already wrote an apology. One that still won't satisfy Carl.
Alright back to Snail's original post. We've been talking about stiffness as it relates to perfomance quite a bit but how about stiffness and ridigity as it relates to durability. I'm lost here as I've heard people complain that If a boat is too stiff it is in turn brittle to impact? In the field I can't say I've actually seen that happen but I've seen some pretty unfortunate accidents where fortunately just the boat was hurt.
I don't know how I insulted snail (anonymous profile? If not please correct me) by asking if it were someone who else in the rowing industry.
I didn't use any personal insults - not nearly as much as Carl's responses have at least - and my post was simply a question based on the fact that I don't think it is far fetched for someone who has recently taken the helm of what was a once successful international company with the goal of improving it. Is it unfair to assume that someone would want to know the rowing community's opinion on some important facts regarding the success of boats? Was the issue that I assumed that individual would do it from a perspective of anonymity? If so, then again, Carl you are right and I'm forever sorry.
Maybe my knee jerk reactionary post was in poor taste as Carl quickly jumped on me for it but I already wrote an apology. One that still won't satisfy Carl.
Alright back to Snail's original post. We've been talking about stiffness as it relates to perfomance quite a bit but how about stiffness and ridigity as it relates to durability. I'm lost here as I've heard people complain that If a boat is too stiff it is in turn brittle to impact? In the field I can't say I've actually seen that happen but I've seen some pretty unfortunate accidents where fortunately just the boat was hurt.
madmar...@gmail.com
Jan 30, 2018, 3:02:59 AM1/30/18
to
On Tuesday, 30 January 2018 03:03:28 UTC, drdavidl...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Maybe my knee jerk reactionary post was in poor taste as Carl quickly jumped on me for it but I already wrote an apology. One that still won't satisfy Carl.
Nothing satisfies Carl! Once he's made his mind up nothing will change it, even if he's in the wrong.
>
> Maybe my knee jerk reactionary post was in poor taste as Carl quickly jumped on me for it but I already wrote an apology. One that still won't satisfy Carl.
>
> Alright back to Snail's original post. We've been talking about stiffness as it relates to perfomance quite a bit but how about stiffness and ridigity as it relates to durability. I'm lost here as I've heard people complain that If a boat is too stiff it is in turn brittle to impact? In the field I can't say I've actually seen that happen but I've seen some pretty unfortunate accidents where fortunately just the boat was hurt.
You can push in the skin of a Fluidesign or a CD scull, but I wouldn't say that the boats were soft. There is an internal frame and a lot of care in design and construction.
You can feel the stiff skin of an older honeycomb cored boat (or a newer 'cheap' boat), but the overall boat is a total noodle. Poorly designed joins, no thought in the material use.
madmar...@gmail.com
Jan 30, 2018, 7:30:49 AM1/30/18
to
Jumping back in right at the top...
>
> 2. Have hull forms actually improved?
>
'Have they improved' and 'are they faster' are separate questions in many ways.
The improvements and reduction in cost of CAD tools (design, CNC machining) has greatly altered hull design and construction.
- Tooling is more accurate and easier to update.
- Designs can be tested and better refined on screen before expensive tooling made.
Basically hulls are more 'true' to the design and there is more control over the design. Gone are the days of fully hand made moulds and the errors they contained. There are many stories of odd errors in boats caused by one side of the mould being slightly different to the other even if only very slightly.
Some builders are re-making old designs by re-drafting them, checking things, then cutting (via a CNC router, probably now in-house) a new plug.
Many of the newer boats have better designed joins between the key pieces (hull, deck, cockpit) and will be stronger and more durable in the longer term.
All that being said, one noted hull designer said to me that he could pick the hulls designed solely on computer and often found errors in them that a traditional lofting process would eliminate. There is a place for the new and old to work together.
Are they faster? Well, given that the crew is the biggest variable it is hard to say but I think people would agree that we haven't gone backwards.
>
> 3. What features in hull shape supposedly make some hulls better at different ratings?
>
Not sure about rating so much as speed.
A hull can be designed to counter certain stroke/power curve styles, which might be more/less obvious at certain rates.
Many builders are looking at particular speed ranges and how 'wave form drag' can countered. Witness the Hudson design 8 with what looks like a kink under 3 seat and a Sykes design where the deepest part of the hull is also at 3. Both seem to be trying to tackle the same problem. Not a new idea if you've seen a Pocock 'tear drop' single from a few decades ago.
Does it work? Maybe. Does the boat feel odd outside of the speed 'sweet spot'? Given the variables in the crew, does it make a workable difference?
>
> 4. What difference does more or less “rocker” make to a rowing shell?
>
Rocker can be a good way to alter the wetted surface area of a hull without changing other key dimensions.
More rocker can make a boat easier to turn.
>
> 5. What makes certain shells better for Tideway work than others?
>
Ability to turn.
- Position of fin
- Design of rudder/fin
- Amount of rocker
Better 'sea keeping' in rougher conditions.
- Shape of bows (resist diving)
One example: the CD design is 'fuller' in the bow above the waterline. On flat water the boat gives you a fast shape, but in rougher conditions when the water goes over that waterline you have a different shape (basically more boat) to help prevent the boat diving in.
>
> 6. What makes a shell “comfortable”?
>
Two different things here.
Comfort: care with ergonomics.
Power application: the biomechanics of certain features (like wider footplates).
You can't overcome poor design and construction, but most builders have sorted this out consistently.
Poor rigging and maintenance would be more of an issue for me. It astonishes me how poorly most boats are rigged. Random pitch will ruin any boat for a crew.
>
>
> And for the UK market, particularly those of you out there running clubs:
>
> 7. What are you actually buying nowadays and why?
>
>
> How many of these clubs buying these boats are buying them because they want them, or because the price differential to Empacher has just become too great?
Bit of both. Empachers are lovely, but if you can get a better deal and better service somewhere else AND the test row was good, why wouldn't you?
>
> Just to explain, I only discuss these three manufacturers because at the top end the UK market makes other options not financially viable. This is not a statement from me suggesting they’re better than the rest, it's an economic thing where residuals and rental opportunities matter. The rental market doesn’t exist for large boats which are not from one of these three manufacturers. Ultimately that is something that matters for club finances.
This is a key point. It's not just about the rowing.
- Spares
- Service
- Resale
- Cost of ownership
- Experience (or habit!)
A builder like Sykes (Australia) makes boats every bit as good as your examples, but would struggle in the UK/EU market without a lot of effort and time. No one knows them. There is no experience/understanding of the brand. There is no idea of the resale. Etc. However, in Australia the boats are very well known, well respected, and highly valued as second hand purchases.
>
> 2. Have hull forms actually improved?
>
The improvements and reduction in cost of CAD tools (design, CNC machining) has greatly altered hull design and construction.
- Tooling is more accurate and easier to update.
- Designs can be tested and better refined on screen before expensive tooling made.
Basically hulls are more 'true' to the design and there is more control over the design. Gone are the days of fully hand made moulds and the errors they contained. There are many stories of odd errors in boats caused by one side of the mould being slightly different to the other even if only very slightly.
Some builders are re-making old designs by re-drafting them, checking things, then cutting (via a CNC router, probably now in-house) a new plug.
Many of the newer boats have better designed joins between the key pieces (hull, deck, cockpit) and will be stronger and more durable in the longer term.
All that being said, one noted hull designer said to me that he could pick the hulls designed solely on computer and often found errors in them that a traditional lofting process would eliminate. There is a place for the new and old to work together.
Are they faster? Well, given that the crew is the biggest variable it is hard to say but I think people would agree that we haven't gone backwards.
>
> 3. What features in hull shape supposedly make some hulls better at different ratings?
>
A hull can be designed to counter certain stroke/power curve styles, which might be more/less obvious at certain rates.
Many builders are looking at particular speed ranges and how 'wave form drag' can countered. Witness the Hudson design 8 with what looks like a kink under 3 seat and a Sykes design where the deepest part of the hull is also at 3. Both seem to be trying to tackle the same problem. Not a new idea if you've seen a Pocock 'tear drop' single from a few decades ago.
Does it work? Maybe. Does the boat feel odd outside of the speed 'sweet spot'? Given the variables in the crew, does it make a workable difference?
>
> 4. What difference does more or less “rocker” make to a rowing shell?
>
More rocker can make a boat easier to turn.
>
> 5. What makes certain shells better for Tideway work than others?
>
- Position of fin
- Design of rudder/fin
- Amount of rocker
Better 'sea keeping' in rougher conditions.
- Shape of bows (resist diving)
One example: the CD design is 'fuller' in the bow above the waterline. On flat water the boat gives you a fast shape, but in rougher conditions when the water goes over that waterline you have a different shape (basically more boat) to help prevent the boat diving in.
>
> 6. What makes a shell “comfortable”?
>
Comfort: care with ergonomics.
Power application: the biomechanics of certain features (like wider footplates).
You can't overcome poor design and construction, but most builders have sorted this out consistently.
Poor rigging and maintenance would be more of an issue for me. It astonishes me how poorly most boats are rigged. Random pitch will ruin any boat for a crew.
>
>
> And for the UK market, particularly those of you out there running clubs:
>
> 7. What are you actually buying nowadays and why?
>
>
> Is there any particular reason why Hudson has been more successful with schools and Filippi more successful with clubs? With universities being somewhere in between. Is this fashion? Does it have anything to do with average crew weights, schoolboys typically buying boats a half size smaller than clubs.
>
Hudson has taken the time and effort to build a customer base through excellent customer service. Add to that a very well engineered boat. Spares are easy. Repairs are easy. I've had a few boat purchasing *moments* with Filippi that have almost seen me cancelling the order, but perhaps it is all a cultural miss-understanding...("Ehhhh" - waves hands in an 'Italian' way). Carl survives because his boats are so good that the customer service experience really doesn't matter at all!
>
> How many of these clubs buying these boats are buying them because they want them, or because the price differential to Empacher has just become too great?
>
> Just to explain, I only discuss these three manufacturers because at the top end the UK market makes other options not financially viable. This is not a statement from me suggesting they’re better than the rest, it's an economic thing where residuals and rental opportunities matter. The rental market doesn’t exist for large boats which are not from one of these three manufacturers. Ultimately that is something that matters for club finances.
- Spares
- Service
- Resale
- Cost of ownership
- Experience (or habit!)
A builder like Sykes (Australia) makes boats every bit as good as your examples, but would struggle in the UK/EU market without a lot of effort and time. No one knows them. There is no experience/understanding of the brand. There is no idea of the resale. Etc. However, in Australia the boats are very well known, well respected, and highly valued as second hand purchases.
John Greenly
Jan 30, 2018, 10:40:18 AM1/30/18
to
On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 7:30:49 AM UTC-5, madmar...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 4. What difference does more or less “rocker” make to a rowing shell?
> >
> Rocker can be a good way to alter the wetted surface area of a hull without changing other key dimensions.
>
> More rocker can make a boat easier to turn.
>
> >
> > 5. What makes certain shells better for Tideway work than others?
> >
>
> Ability to turn.
> - Position of fin
> - Design of rudder/fin
> - Amount of rocker
>
> Better 'sea keeping' in rougher conditions.
> - Shape of bows (resist diving)
>
> One example: the CD design is 'fuller' in the bow above the waterline. On flat water the boat gives you a fast shape, but in rougher conditions when the water goes over that waterline you have a different shape (basically more boat) to help prevent the boat diving in.
this is a great post, thanks!! I've picked out two of the topics because I've been puzzling about them the last year os so. I have a Peinert X25, and a FISA hull that the Drehers (Durham Boat Co) made. They differ in these ways: the FISA boat turns significantly easier, I can keep speed up better in rough conditions that I row in a lot on my big lake, and I find it super-comfortable and feels more stable in all conditions. I think however, that I can go a bit faster in the Peinert on flat water.
> > 4. What difference does more or less “rocker” make to a rowing shell?
> >
> Rocker can be a good way to alter the wetted surface area of a hull without changing other key dimensions.
>
> More rocker can make a boat easier to turn.
>
> >
> > 5. What makes certain shells better for Tideway work than others?
> >
>
> Ability to turn.
> - Position of fin
> - Design of rudder/fin
> - Amount of rocker
>
> Better 'sea keeping' in rougher conditions.
> - Shape of bows (resist diving)
>
> One example: the CD design is 'fuller' in the bow above the waterline. On flat water the boat gives you a fast shape, but in rougher conditions when the water goes over that waterline you have a different shape (basically more boat) to help prevent the boat diving in.
The FISA hull is 20 cm longer, and the maximum waterline beam of the two boats is very close to the same with my weight. Given the performance differences I listed, I initially guessed that the FISA hull has more rocker than the Peinert, but measurement showed them to be nearly identical in rocker.
The real differences are that the FISA hull has a slightly U-shaped (flatter on the bottom) section in the middle of the boat, and the beam tapers more strongly toward the ends, particularly the stern, so that it is narrower in the aft 2m of so of the length. This means that the displacement is more concentrated toward the middle. I'm thinking that this probably explains the easier turning.
The FISA center of buoyancy is I think about the same distance from the bow as the Peinert, and the FISA bow shape makes a quicker, more forward transition from V to circular section in a way that means that the forward displacement goes up faster as the bow immerses further. These differences I think explain the better rough water performance. The great designer L. Francis Herreshoff always emphasized the proper balancing of displacement in the ends of a boat for best control of pitching in rough seas. Many of his best racing sailboats had this combination of rounded forward sections and long, relatively narrow-sectioned stern.
Finally, without actually fully measuring the hulls and calculating, I'm guessing that the wetted surface of the Peinert hull is less than the FISA, and since I am a slow old guy sculler, that is certainly the key factor in my flat-water speed, so probably explains why my top speed is faster in the Peinert.
Finally, I put CD riggers on the FISA hull, and the wonderful fit, rigidity and adjustability have helped me to rig the boat to suit me perfectly, certainly contributing to the super-comfortable feel.
All these hull differences are not very big, and it takes some careful measuring to compare, but I think I've learned something from puzzling about this. I'd welcome comments on these thoughts!
thanks,
John
madmar...@gmail.com
Jan 30, 2018, 4:29:23 PM1/30/18
to
>
> All these hull differences are not very big, and it takes some careful measuring to compare, but I think I've learned something from puzzling about this. I'd welcome comments on these thoughts!
>
> thanks,
> John
The Snail
Jan 30, 2018, 6:00:14 PM1/30/18
to
On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 12:30:49 PM UTC, madmar...@gmail.com wrote:
> This is a key point. It's not just about the rowing.
> - Spares
> - Service
> - Resale
> - Cost of ownership
> - Experience (or habit!)
>
> A builder like Sykes (Australia) makes boats every bit as good as your examples, but would struggle in the UK/EU market without a lot of effort and time. No one knows them. There is no experience/understanding of the brand. There is no idea of the resale. Etc. However, in Australia the boats are very well known, well respected, and highly valued as second hand purchases.
So much agreed and has to be stressed. In the real world speed and quality is not the be all and end all of boat purchasing. I have previously been a member of a very high profile club that was offered all sorts of shells to try in an attempt to break into the UK market.
> This is a key point. It's not just about the rowing.
> - Spares
> - Service
> - Resale
> - Cost of ownership
> - Experience (or habit!)
>
> A builder like Sykes (Australia) makes boats every bit as good as your examples, but would struggle in the UK/EU market without a lot of effort and time. No one knows them. There is no experience/understanding of the brand. There is no idea of the resale. Etc. However, in Australia the boats are very well known, well respected, and highly valued as second hand purchases.
We had on loan at various points, Kirs, Vespolis, Resolutes, Salanis. Everything weird and different under the sun (though admittedly not a Sykes). Realistically, it was highly unlikely any of them would have been purchased, unless the terms were extremely favourable due to the lack of support for them in the UK. The quality of the shell was somewhat irrelevant compared to difficulty getting parts and organising repair. I've had to put boats on a trailer to Italy for repair. New Zealand is significantly further.
Another more frustrating example for me as a coach is that I have a strong preference for three stay riggers over wings, particularly those three stays that come from a member of this forum. *Controversial opinion* the main advantage of wings for me is the ability to trim your boat, one which I don't use. Rough water performance I think is overstated, and residual stiffness and ease of ribless maintenance is my boatman's problem not my own. Plus not relevant if you turn over your top end fleet regularly. Unfortunately despite this preference the clubs will not purchase a top end three stay large boat again, partly because of manufacturers no longer offering three stays, but mostly because on the second hand market, when turning over your fleet, three stays take a significant hit compared to wings. My personal preference does not make up for the far faster depreciation, sadly.
The Snail
Jan 30, 2018, 6:30:54 PM1/30/18
to
On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 12:30:49 PM UTC, madmar...@gmail.com wrote:
> Jumping back in right at the top...
>
> >
> > 2. Have hull forms actually improved?
> >
> 'Have they improved' and 'are they faster' are separate questions in many ways.
>
> The improvements and reduction in cost of CAD tools (design, CNC machining) has greatly altered hull design and construction.
> - Tooling is more accurate and easier to update.
> - Designs can be tested and better refined on screen before expensive tooling made.
>
> Basically hulls are more 'true' to the design and there is more control over the design. Gone are the days of fully hand made moulds and the errors they contained. There are many stories of odd errors in boats caused by one side of the mould being slightly different to the other even if only very slightly.
>
> Some builders are re-making old designs by re-drafting them, checking things, then cutting (via a CNC router, probably now in-house) a new plug.
>
> Many of the newer boats have better designed joins between the key pieces (hull, deck, cockpit) and will be stronger and more durable in the longer term.
>
> All that being said, one noted hull designer said to me that he could pick the hulls designed solely on computer and often found errors in them that a traditional lofting process would eliminate. There is a place for the new and old to work together.
>
> Are they faster? Well, given that the crew is the biggest variable it is hard to say but I think people would agree that we haven't gone backwards.
>
I'm quite confident we haven't gone backwards. I'm less convinced on hull shape alone we've gone forward.
>
> >
> > 2. Have hull forms actually improved?
> >
> 'Have they improved' and 'are they faster' are separate questions in many ways.
>
> The improvements and reduction in cost of CAD tools (design, CNC machining) has greatly altered hull design and construction.
> - Tooling is more accurate and easier to update.
> - Designs can be tested and better refined on screen before expensive tooling made.
>
> Basically hulls are more 'true' to the design and there is more control over the design. Gone are the days of fully hand made moulds and the errors they contained. There are many stories of odd errors in boats caused by one side of the mould being slightly different to the other even if only very slightly.
>
> Some builders are re-making old designs by re-drafting them, checking things, then cutting (via a CNC router, probably now in-house) a new plug.
>
> Many of the newer boats have better designed joins between the key pieces (hull, deck, cockpit) and will be stronger and more durable in the longer term.
>
> All that being said, one noted hull designer said to me that he could pick the hulls designed solely on computer and often found errors in them that a traditional lofting process would eliminate. There is a place for the new and old to work together.
>
> Are they faster? Well, given that the crew is the biggest variable it is hard to say but I think people would agree that we haven't gone backwards.
>
Completely unscientific non survey, I observe large boats generally speaking, getting less flat in shape. There are more semi-circles or v-shapes. The really flat bottomed boats like K80s have gone. However it is noticeable that some shapes are still substantially flatter than others.
The chisel straight bow, has only been really mainstream for the past few years. I'm quite undecided on these to be honest, I'm not entirely sure what the logic behind them is for rowing. Anyone care to explain?
Very true on improvements in QC and all.
>
> >
> > 5. What makes certain shells better for Tideway work than others?
> >
>
> Ability to turn.
> - Position of fin
> - Design of rudder/fin
> - Amount of rocker
>
> Better 'sea keeping' in rougher conditions.
> - Shape of bows (resist diving)
>
> One example: the CD design is 'fuller' in the bow above the waterline. On flat water the boat gives you a fast shape, but in rougher conditions when the water goes over that waterline you have a different shape (basically more boat) to help prevent the boat diving in.
>
Better seakeeping and more more buoyancy in the bows is definitely noticeable. Some boats feel like they're ploughing through waves rather than cutting through them, or riding them.
As a general rule I prefer more stable boats on the Tideway. My logic here is the swirl will upset the boat enough, the crew will appreciate something easier to row. And that pretty much any boat upright will row better than one on its side.
Steering is an interesting one. Design yes, combined foil section fin rudders are notably better. If that's not an option, deep "2k" fins behave significantly better than the cropped upriver variety. Never properly considered the position of the fin. Care to expand on this?
(Totally agreed if you mean the old style fours fin with separate rudder on the end).
John Greenly
Jan 30, 2018, 7:06:17 PM1/30/18
to
John
Henry Law
Feb 1, 2018, 1:36:42 PM2/1/18
to
On 30/01/18 12:30, madmar...@gmail.com wrote:
> Carl survives because his boats are so good that the customer service experience really doesn't matter at all!
Umm, that's a little unkind. I am a customer of Carl's, and I have no
> Carl survives because his boats are so good that the customer service experience really doesn't matter at all!
complaint whatever about the customer service. "Extra mile" (or in my
case four hundred-odd of them) would be my observation. But the boat,
well, that is as you describe it.
--
Henry Law n e w s @ l a w s h o u s e . o r g
Manchester, England
Henry Law
Feb 1, 2018, 1:40:30 PM2/1/18
to
On 30/01/18 23:00, The Snail wrote:
> I have a strong preference for three stay riggers over wings
Me too. I think WR's are a fad, and one with no measurable advantage
> I have a strong preference for three stay riggers over wings
and several clearly observable disadvantages (lower freeboard, for
example). They're dear too.
drdavidl...@gmail.com
Feb 1, 2018, 2:32:24 PM2/1/18
to
You think Wing Riggers are a fad?
If you pointed to the timeline of modern rowing as a foundation for your argument then I would agree with you.
Three stay riggers and higher gunwales have been around for much longer than wing riggers. But I am having a hard time seeing wing riggers as a fad.
The fact that they have been a staple in international rowing since 2004 and have lent to a good number of world records including two in the Men's 8. Points to more than just a fad. Magic-lock oarlocks/gates - now those were a fad.
A little hard to call wing riggers a fad at this point, sorry but I disagree with you.
If you pointed to the timeline of modern rowing as a foundation for your argument then I would agree with you.
Three stay riggers and higher gunwales have been around for much longer than wing riggers. But I am having a hard time seeing wing riggers as a fad.
The fact that they have been a staple in international rowing since 2004 and have lent to a good number of world records including two in the Men's 8. Points to more than just a fad. Magic-lock oarlocks/gates - now those were a fad.
A little hard to call wing riggers a fad at this point, sorry but I disagree with you.
madmar...@gmail.com
Feb 1, 2018, 4:16:27 PM2/1/18
to
No shoulder means better comfort for rowers: hip room, wider rails, less calf bite.
There is no reason why a 1x or 2x has any less freeboard. I grant that bigger boats are at a disadvantage.
Construction of hulls is simplified (quicker and cheaper). The cockpits can be designed for greater strength and the rigger braces the boat.
Negatives include:
- stern wings can interfere with large feet and stretcher adjustments.
- knocking your knuckles on a wing if the boat dumps to one side.
- I've seen tall rowers bang shins on riggers at the catch (rare!)
- weak rigger design, welding failure (common enough)
drdavidl...@gmail.com
Feb 1, 2018, 5:22:05 PM2/1/18
to
All good points to consider but when I read the Cons you've listed to wing riggers I disagree. They all seem like items that can be rigged around or worked around.
Foot clearance is definitely one that is the most nagging on sculling boats when compared to the freedom you get with euro riggers but it can be managed if a builder builds a proper height Rigger with higher gunwales. (Or just a bow wing in a single).
Hitting the shins can happen but nowadays top end builders are taking that into account when designing wings. The larger weight boats which typically have taller athletes (no I'm not saying only heavyweights are tall) have increased work throughs on their riggers - or at least they should. If your builder hasn't figured that out yet I suggest finding a new one.
As for the hitting your hands. I've always had a hard time believing that one. I have plenty of scars on my knuckles and tops of my fingers from getting them crushed on the top edge of the gunwale from side mount/euro rig/three stay riggers. To that point, I've never hit my hands on a wing BUT I was only smacking my hands in my first two years of rowing when we were all still learning.
When some builders started producing the wing en made with their boats, others put out Ads saying they were not good and for that very reason (hitting hands). They literally had in the ad "To wing or not to wing." That builder now sells more wing rigged boats than anything else they have to offer.
I'd love to see true empirical data that wings are not a better option compared to conventional riggers.
Chalk it up to difference of opinion though. I'm not going to try and change your mind. These are the chats worth having over beers.
Foot clearance is definitely one that is the most nagging on sculling boats when compared to the freedom you get with euro riggers but it can be managed if a builder builds a proper height Rigger with higher gunwales. (Or just a bow wing in a single).
Hitting the shins can happen but nowadays top end builders are taking that into account when designing wings. The larger weight boats which typically have taller athletes (no I'm not saying only heavyweights are tall) have increased work throughs on their riggers - or at least they should. If your builder hasn't figured that out yet I suggest finding a new one.
As for the hitting your hands. I've always had a hard time believing that one. I have plenty of scars on my knuckles and tops of my fingers from getting them crushed on the top edge of the gunwale from side mount/euro rig/three stay riggers. To that point, I've never hit my hands on a wing BUT I was only smacking my hands in my first two years of rowing when we were all still learning.
When some builders started producing the wing en made with their boats, others put out Ads saying they were not good and for that very reason (hitting hands). They literally had in the ad "To wing or not to wing." That builder now sells more wing rigged boats than anything else they have to offer.
I'd love to see true empirical data that wings are not a better option compared to conventional riggers.
Chalk it up to difference of opinion though. I'm not going to try and change your mind. These are the chats worth having over beers.
The Snail
Feb 1, 2018, 6:44:46 PM2/1/18
to
I happen to prefer three stays when coaching for a variety of reasons, mostly related to having a boatbay with a million spares. It makes my life easier having enough riggers to rig any craziness I may wish to allow to test stern pairs or to account for questionable coxes hitting pontoons and bending riggers.
I also find it easier to use three stays on midweight boats that I sometimes use for men and women as the height adjustment is greater without using ridiculous pins.
It's mostly a practical thing. I also don't believe there is a measurable advantage in having wings over 2k if both boats are new/in good condition.
My point was I choose to buy wing rigged boats over three stays boats for reasons of far better depreciation rather than anything else.
The Snail
Feb 1, 2018, 6:57:17 PM2/1/18
to
Forgot to actually say what I consider the advantages of wings are.
Ability to trim a boat longitudinally. Something I find quite important for small boats, in large boats I find it rare I need to do this.
Maintenance, wing rigger mountings can't be crushed really unlike ribs. rib replacement due to crushing and snapping is a genuine maintenance issue in a large fleet as it eats man hours.
Space from lack of ribs, small boats and particularly the stroke seat of bow coxed fours. Allows wide hipped rowers to row and not get pinched, particularly lightweight boats with women. Less relevant with low profile carbon ribbed boats.
Ability to trim a boat longitudinally. Something I find quite important for small boats, in large boats I find it rare I need to do this.
Maintenance, wing rigger mountings can't be crushed really unlike ribs. rib replacement due to crushing and snapping is a genuine maintenance issue in a large fleet as it eats man hours.
Space from lack of ribs, small boats and particularly the stroke seat of bow coxed fours. Allows wide hipped rowers to row and not get pinched, particularly lightweight boats with women. Less relevant with low profile carbon ribbed boats.
madmar...@gmail.com
Feb 2, 2018, 3:16:08 AM2/2/18
to
On Thursday, 1 February 2018 22:22:05 UTC, drdavidl...@gmail.com wrote:
> All good points to consider but when I read the Cons you've listed to wing riggers I disagree. They all seem like items that can be rigged around or worked around.
Why should you have to work around something that should have been resolved by better design in the first place?
> All good points to consider but when I read the Cons you've listed to wing riggers I disagree. They all seem like items that can be rigged around or worked around.
Not all of these problems exist in all boats, and many are now 'solved' over time, but I've been forced to deal with quite a few of them as a coach or boatman.
>
> Foot clearance is definitely one that is the most nagging on sculling boats when compared to the freedom you get with euro riggers but it can be managed if a builder builds a proper height Rigger with higher gunwales. (Or just a bow wing in a single).
>
> Hitting the shins can happen but nowadays top end builders are taking that into account when designing wings. The larger weight boats which typically have taller athletes (no I'm not saying only heavyweights are tall) have increased work throughs on their riggers - or at least they should. If your builder hasn't figured that out yet I suggest finding a new one.
>
> As for the hitting your hands. I've always had a hard time believing that one.
However, the same crew did get my fingers on the saxboard of a conventionally rigged Empacher too!
>
> When some builders started producing the wing en made with their boats, others put out Ads saying they were not good and for that very reason (hitting hands). They literally had in the ad "To wing or not to wing." That builder now sells more wing rigged boats than anything else they have to offer.
>
> I'd love to see true empirical data that wings are not a better option compared to conventional riggers.
Wings put a lot of strain on the elbow of the shape and the alloy wings were regularly failing on many brands. Less so now, but it still is seen on boats less than 5 years old.
Carbon wings eliminate the weakness of the welding and are the way of the future.
>
> Chalk it up to difference of opinion though. I'm not going to try and change your mind. These are the chats worth having over beers.
madmar...@gmail.com
Feb 2, 2018, 3:19:12 AM2/2/18
to
On Thursday, 1 February 2018 23:57:17 UTC, The Snail wrote:
> Forgot to actually say what I consider the advantages of wings are.
>
> Ability to trim a boat longitudinally. Something I find quite important for small boats, in large boats I find it rare I need to do this.
I had forgotten trim. No need to build a new rigger to change the work position.
> Forgot to actually say what I consider the advantages of wings are.
>
> Ability to trim a boat longitudinally. Something I find quite important for small boats, in large boats I find it rare I need to do this.
Also - eliminating ribs also means that a step down in the deck can be included. A great feature that I'm going to need as I get older and ease of boat entry (1x, 2x) becomes more of an issue.
>
> Maintenance, wing rigger mountings can't be crushed really unlike ribs. rib replacement due to crushing and snapping is a genuine maintenance issue in a large fleet as it eats man hours.
>
> Space from lack of ribs, small boats and particularly the stroke seat of bow coxed fours. Allows wide hipped rowers to row and not get pinched, particularly lightweight boats with women. Less relevant with low profile carbon ribbed boats.
Henry Law
Feb 2, 2018, 5:18:38 AM2/2/18
to
On 01/02/18 19:32, drdavidl...@gmail.com wrote:
> You think Wing Riggers are a fad?
>
> If you pointed to the timeline of modern rowing as a foundation for your argument then I would agree with you.
Well, perhaps I used the wrong word. My irritation (and I promise I'll
> You think Wing Riggers are a fad?
>
> If you pointed to the timeline of modern rowing as a foundation for your argument then I would agree with you.
not say more in this thread ...) is not so much with wing riggers,
though I personally don't like them for a number of reasons which have
mostly been ventilated in this thread.
My issue is with the prevailing notion amongst rowers that there is
/one/ good way to build/rig a boat, and that /that/ way, or /that/ boat
is the one that will win them prizes. And, as a consequence, that all
other boats or technologies are to be scorned, to be thrown away as if
useless.
So, in all but top clubs and national programmes, some boats are
ignored, kicked around and starved of maintenance just because they've
got "the black spot", while in fact most--if not all--the crews in those
clubs would win just as many races in those boats as in those with the
lastest technology.
Kit Davies
Feb 2, 2018, 5:44:22 AM2/2/18
to
of being hit in the back at speed by a stern-mounted wing with no
forestay makes me shudder. Bow-mounted wings/forestays would be much
more palatable in this regard.
Kit
madmar...@gmail.com
Feb 2, 2018, 5:47:29 AM2/2/18
to
On Friday, 2 February 2018 10:18:38 UTC, Henry Law wrote:
>
> My issue is with the prevailing notion amongst rowers that there is
> /one/ good way to build/rig a boat, and that /that/ way, or /that/ boat
> is the one that will win them prizes. And, as a consequence, that all
> other boats or technologies are to be scorned, to be thrown away as if
> useless.
>
> So, in all but top clubs and national programmes, some boats are
> ignored, kicked around and starved of maintenance just because they've
> got "the black spot", while in fact most--if not all--the crews in those
> clubs would win just as many races in those boats as in those with the
> lastest technology.
>
"It's the horses, not the chariot"
>
> My issue is with the prevailing notion amongst rowers that there is
> /one/ good way to build/rig a boat, and that /that/ way, or /that/ boat
> is the one that will win them prizes. And, as a consequence, that all
> other boats or technologies are to be scorned, to be thrown away as if
> useless.
>
> So, in all but top clubs and national programmes, some boats are
> ignored, kicked around and starved of maintenance just because they've
> got "the black spot", while in fact most--if not all--the crews in those
> clubs would win just as many races in those boats as in those with the
> lastest technology.
>
I've seen plenty of crews be fussy about older equipment when it would serve them perfectly well.
Apart from simply refusing to allocate new boats to lesser crews, a few tricks I've used over the years:
- repainting and putting new grips on the old oars at the same time as the new oars arrive.
- having another crew use the old boat 'beat' the fussy crew in training pieces
- rig the new boat a bit off so that they come back for the old one
My personal boat is a cheap 20+ year old Janousek single, albeit nicely refurbished. I know what is making that boat go slow and it isn't the boat.
That being said, I would like a newer and lighter boat...
madmar...@gmail.com
Feb 2, 2018, 5:51:10 AM2/2/18
to
drdavidl...@gmail.com
Feb 2, 2018, 12:58:52 PM2/2/18
to
All good points here. No one should be scorned for a difference of opinion on something - especially if there is no actual study to back it up.
As for hitting stuff or people (which we all pray doesn't happen often) I've been victim of an incident and also witnessed others. The time I was hit was when a 4- was rowing on the wrong side of the course as I was bowman in my 4- and we were in the midst of a 20 stroke piece at a 40. That was 15 years ago and you can still see the paint from the oar on my dry fit shirt (yes, I do wash my clothes). Surprisingly I was okay other than some bruising (core strength is the important in more ways than one I guess). Both boats came to a dead stop as we collided.
I've also witnessed wings break in the event of a collision with something beyond the pin or around the pin block area. They all seem to fail in the same spot (around the elbow weld) and I have yet to see it happen where the gunwale is damaged. Now, I ask the board - what happens to a side mount Rigger in this scenario? I haven't seen it happen but I'm guessing the hull and the Rigger are severely damaged???
As for hitting stuff or people (which we all pray doesn't happen often) I've been victim of an incident and also witnessed others. The time I was hit was when a 4- was rowing on the wrong side of the course as I was bowman in my 4- and we were in the midst of a 20 stroke piece at a 40. That was 15 years ago and you can still see the paint from the oar on my dry fit shirt (yes, I do wash my clothes). Surprisingly I was okay other than some bruising (core strength is the important in more ways than one I guess). Both boats came to a dead stop as we collided.
I've also witnessed wings break in the event of a collision with something beyond the pin or around the pin block area. They all seem to fail in the same spot (around the elbow weld) and I have yet to see it happen where the gunwale is damaged. Now, I ask the board - what happens to a side mount Rigger in this scenario? I haven't seen it happen but I'm guessing the hull and the Rigger are severely damaged???
The Snail
Feb 2, 2018, 3:14:07 PM2/2/18
to
Aluminium wings all tend to fail on the pin side of the elbow weld. The whole thing just opens up. In very bad collisions enough force is transmitted through to the hull that it tries to displace the sax boards due to the rigger mountings. This pivoting force will damage the saxboards and the twist will detach the deck at that seat. It all pops up. I have seen this happen several times, it is doable.
Three stays tend to just fold up in a collision. Usually crumpling one third down the forestay. With a soft rigger your hull can be undamaged. In bad collisions the rigger will fold and also the rib will snap, usually at the lower rigger mounting bolt, or alternatively just at the deck level. In very bad collisions with strong riggers and unusually strong ribs, it is possible to tear the rib away from the hull in one piece, still attached to the remains of the rigger.
In terms of fixing, a collision with wings where the deck gets displaced is beyond your typical boatman. That's time to send your boat back to the manufacturer. Collisions with three stays, a rib snapping can be a boatman repair, it's time consuming but doable. Collisions where the whole rib gets displaced (rare, have only seen once) is a professional repair/economic write off.
Also of relevance, in the UK, a new wing is approx 250GBP, a new (cheap) three stay is 80GBP.
Source: Much, great, personal sadness watching people abuse shells.
wmar...@gmail.com
Feb 3, 2018, 8:06:59 AM2/3/18
to
The Snail
Feb 3, 2018, 8:45:44 AM2/3/18
to
Boat purchasing tends to be a recommendation from the head coach and the boatman to the committee, which rubber stamps it. The boatman's concern is how the boats stand up over time as he/she is the one who needs to live with it.
If people only looked at raceability and not how boats stood up to collisions and abuse there wouldn't be a Janousek in the world, yet they are probably(?) the most popular boat manufacturer by number of in use hulls in the UK because of their durability and toughness.
It's all well and good to say we shouldn't have collisions but people do. Try running a junior squad without spare shells, it won't go well for you.
wmar...@gmail.com
Feb 3, 2018, 9:07:53 AM2/3/18
to
> > AFAIK people buy boats for their "raceability" rather than their "repairability". Collisions almost always mean failure by the operators to follow safety procedures. Boats can be replaced.
>
>
>
> I would disagree with this in all the clubs I've been involved with. And these have been relatively well funded clubs for the UK, obviously we don't have the money of the US universities but still comparatively well funded.
>
> Boat purchasing tends to be a recommendation from the head coach and the boatman to the committee, which rubber stamps it. The boatman's concern is how the boats stand up over time as he/she is the one who needs to live with it.
>
> If people only looked at raceability and not how boats stood up to collisions and abuse there wouldn't be a Janousek in the world, yet they are probably(?) the most popular boat manufacturer by number of in use hulls in the UK because of their durability and toughness.
>
> It's all well and good to say we shouldn't have collisions but people do. Try running a junior squad without spare shells, it won't go well for you.
Perhaps if you didn't have the luxury of spares, your education of the crews, coxswains and coaches would be a little more diligent?
Disciplinary action of some sort for traffic flow violations - e.g., demote the coach to a more experienced crew so his/her shortcomings are less damaging (you need your best coaches for the beginners so they learn good habits)...
The Snail
Feb 3, 2018, 9:27:00 AM2/3/18
to
My point still stands. If I were running a novice program where you have massively heavy boat use like the one you describe. I would be buying tough double skin carbon kevlar boats, with composite shoulders and thick gel coats, and totally standard spare parts to account for wear from heavy and rough usage.
I would not want carbon two stays, or thin painted hulls.
I would be buying boats for repairability and long term graft over raceability.
wmar...@gmail.com
Feb 3, 2018, 9:32:17 AM2/3/18
to
The Snail
Feb 3, 2018, 9:53:04 AM2/3/18
to
In my rowing career I have rowed a wooden 8 once, and that was as a bit of fun, the boat had not seen water for about a decade.
I'm seeing nearly all clubs in my area running split fleets to try and alleviate this issue. Where you keep Empachers/Filippis/Hudsons for your top crews, and a fleet of tough easy to repair (and/or cheap) club boats Janouseks/ERBs/Sims/Wintechs/Kanghuas etc for those more likely to damage equipment. The preferred solution for old top boats seems to be passing them to competent but less powerful masters rather than down towards novices, at least with the Filippis and Hudsons.
Also being Tideway based there is a general acceptance that some level of damage will occur no matter how careful you are due to having moving sand bars, and gravel (read rocks) landing areas. Even the best Henley winning crews with top end coxes will scrape a boat from time to time, there are a couple of clubs with a lot of spare carbon wings at the moment. Having boats that scratch less easily is a definite consideration when purchasing as resprays add weight and burn money.
wmar...@gmail.com
Feb 3, 2018, 5:25:49 PM2/3/18
to
Sarah Harbour
Feb 6, 2018, 12:23:07 PM2/6/18
to
^snip^
On Friday, 2 February 2018 08:16:08 UTC, madmar...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I'd happily own an eight with regular riggers (CD, of course), but I'd probably go for a wing in a 1x. It's more about what is appropriate for the situation.
Having helped a friend to sort out car topping her Stampfli with a wing rigger, even if I wasn't already an AeRoWing-advocate, I wouldn't touch one with a barge pole. We only just managed to get it in the back of the car (we had to put the seat down) and there was no-way she'd have been able to take passengers with her - it wasn't a small car either. When we car top my 1x, even with blades, riggers and stuff we can take another person in the back of the car and have a full boot.
Sarah
On Friday, 2 February 2018 08:16:08 UTC, madmar...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I'd happily own an eight with regular riggers (CD, of course), but I'd probably go for a wing in a 1x. It's more about what is appropriate for the situation.
Sarah
thomas....@googlemail.com
Feb 7, 2018, 4:20:43 AM2/7/18
to
Kit Davies
Feb 7, 2018, 5:25:44 AM2/7/18
to
Kit
Sarah Harbour
Feb 8, 2018, 4:22:53 PM2/8/18
to
Sarah
Kit Davies
Feb 9, 2018, 4:25:23 AM2/9/18
to
stop me buying the boat.
Kit
thomas....@googlemail.com
Feb 9, 2018, 7:22:59 AM2/9/18
to
https://www.google.de/search?q=filippi+carbon+two+stay&rlz=1C1GGRV_enBA752DE752&oq=filippi+carbon+two+stay&aqs=chrome..69i57.4825j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
The Snail
Feb 9, 2018, 3:35:56 PM2/9/18
to
I would hazard a guess this comes down to personal boat vs club boat. I would happily buy a carbon two stay single for myself, ideally one without the simultaneous height spread adjustment system which is very irritating.
I wouldn't buy one for a club. Club boats tend to get bashed a bit more, and two stays are very susceptible to the corner of landing stages. Wonderful and strong riggers for rowing with, generally delicate with any impact.
Sarah Harbour
Feb 10, 2018, 6:19:17 AM2/10/18
to
I really don't get why you'd want carbon 2 stay riggers at all though...
Sarah
Sarah
madmar...@gmail.com
Feb 10, 2018, 1:57:14 PM2/10/18
to
On Saturday, 10 February 2018 11:19:17 UTC, Sarah Harbour wrote:
> I really don't get why you'd want carbon 2 stay riggers at all though...
>
> Sarah
And they are ghastly things to rig correctly. I've had to do the fine tune on the pitch for a few friends when they've given up in frustration.
> I really don't get why you'd want carbon 2 stay riggers at all though...
>
> Sarah
thomas....@googlemail.com
Feb 12, 2018, 6:23:14 AM2/12/18
to
On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 8:35:56 PM UTC, The Snail wrote:
> On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 12:22:59 PM UTC, thomas....@googlemail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 9:25:23 AM UTC, Kit Davies wrote:
> > > On 08/02/18 21:22, Sarah Harbour wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, 7 February 2018 10:25:44 UTC, Kit Davies wrote:
> > > >> On 06/02/18 17:23, Sarah Harbour wrote:
> > > >>> ^snip^
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Friday, 2 February 2018 08:16:08 UTC, madmar...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I'd happily own an eight with regular riggers (CD, of course), but I'd probably go for a wing in a 1x. It's more about what is appropriate for the situation.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Having helped a friend to sort out car topping her Stampfli with a wing rigger, even if I wasn't already an AeRoWing-advocate, I wouldn't touch one with a barge pole. We only just managed to get it in the back of the car (we had to put the seat down) and there was no-way she'd have been able to take passengers with her - it wasn't a small car either. When we car top my 1x, even with blades, riggers and stuff we can take another person in the back of the car and have a full boot.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Sarah
> > > >>>
> > > >> Can you not strap the wing to the roof bars, along with the sculls?
> > > >>
> > > >> Kit
> > > >
> > > > You probably can, but that's a heck of a lot more phaff than just sticking a pair of conventional riggers in the back of the car or the boot. You'd probably want to have a mount for it too rather than just strapping it to the roof rack.
> > > >
> > > > Sarah
> > > >
> > > That's fair, though I'm not sure that would be enough of a reason to
> > > stop me buying the boat.
> > >
> > > Kit
> >
> > I do think its a shame a lot of manufacturers don't offer side rigger options, for low drag and stiffness I think the carbon 2-stay side riggers by Filippi and Dreher are the best - although im not sure its ever been measured how much extra drag a wing produces?
> >
> > https://www.google.de/search?q=filippi+carbon+two+stay&rlz=1C1GGRV_enBA752DE752&oq=filippi+carbon+two+stay&aqs=chrome..69i57.4825j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
>
>
>
> I believe all of the major European manufacturers do still offer carbon two stay riggers for small boats, though quite a few do not for large boats. I know some of the US ones do not. Unfortunately don't know enough about the rest of the world.
Some of the manufacturers do like Stampfli/Janousek, Filippi - the major one is Empacher who removed the S (carbon 2 stay) and K (classic aluminium) from their website so I assumed they no longer offer it
> On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 12:22:59 PM UTC, thomas....@googlemail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 9:25:23 AM UTC, Kit Davies wrote:
> > > On 08/02/18 21:22, Sarah Harbour wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, 7 February 2018 10:25:44 UTC, Kit Davies wrote:
> > > >> On 06/02/18 17:23, Sarah Harbour wrote:
> > > >>> ^snip^
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Friday, 2 February 2018 08:16:08 UTC, madmar...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I'd happily own an eight with regular riggers (CD, of course), but I'd probably go for a wing in a 1x. It's more about what is appropriate for the situation.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Having helped a friend to sort out car topping her Stampfli with a wing rigger, even if I wasn't already an AeRoWing-advocate, I wouldn't touch one with a barge pole. We only just managed to get it in the back of the car (we had to put the seat down) and there was no-way she'd have been able to take passengers with her - it wasn't a small car either. When we car top my 1x, even with blades, riggers and stuff we can take another person in the back of the car and have a full boot.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Sarah
> > > >>>
> > > >> Can you not strap the wing to the roof bars, along with the sculls?
> > > >>
> > > >> Kit
> > > >
> > > > You probably can, but that's a heck of a lot more phaff than just sticking a pair of conventional riggers in the back of the car or the boot. You'd probably want to have a mount for it too rather than just strapping it to the roof rack.
> > > >
> > > > Sarah
> > > >
> > > That's fair, though I'm not sure that would be enough of a reason to
> > > stop me buying the boat.
> > >
> > > Kit
> >
> > I do think its a shame a lot of manufacturers don't offer side rigger options, for low drag and stiffness I think the carbon 2-stay side riggers by Filippi and Dreher are the best - although im not sure its ever been measured how much extra drag a wing produces?
> >
> > https://www.google.de/search?q=filippi+carbon+two+stay&rlz=1C1GGRV_enBA752DE752&oq=filippi+carbon+two+stay&aqs=chrome..69i57.4825j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
>
>
>
> I believe all of the major European manufacturers do still offer carbon two stay riggers for small boats, though quite a few do not for large boats. I know some of the US ones do not. Unfortunately don't know enough about the rest of the world.
Because if you are hunting for the stiffest and yet lightest option then its got to be carbon, and then weight saved on the riggers can be used to strengthen the shoulders etc
Plus I remember Garath had done some testing which showed the two stay bow design was no less flexable that the standard stern two stay design (including the aerowing)
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.sport.rowing/Gareth$20Gruenbaum|sort:date/rec.sport.rowing/ONibv3A47Qk/cxII9KcsJGIJ
Agree with the rigging tho, they are a pain in the butt - aerowing defo wins that with their innovative pin wedges
John Greenly
Feb 13, 2018, 10:42:31 AM2/13/18
to
On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 6:23:14 AM UTC-5, thomas....@googlemail.com wrote:
(…)
> Plus I remember Garath had done some testing which showed the two stay bow design was no less flexable that the standard stern two stay design (including the aerowing)
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.sport.rowing/Gareth$20Gruenbaum|sort:date/rec.sport.rowing/ONibv3A47Qk/cxII9KcsJGIJ
>
> Agree with the rigging tho, they are a pain in the butt - aerowing defo wins that with their innovative pin wedges
Thanks for referencing this thread, I'd not seen it before. With great trepidation, I'd like to revisit the issues of rigger stiffness, because in reading through that thread, I see that the Aerowing was not correctly understood.
I think I should start a new thread on this topic.
thanks,
John
(…)
> Plus I remember Garath had done some testing which showed the two stay bow design was no less flexable that the standard stern two stay design (including the aerowing)
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.sport.rowing/Gareth$20Gruenbaum|sort:date/rec.sport.rowing/ONibv3A47Qk/cxII9KcsJGIJ
>
> Agree with the rigging tho, they are a pain in the butt - aerowing defo wins that with their innovative pin wedges
I think I should start a new thread on this topic.
thanks,
John
0 new messages