What's faster, Echo or Aero?
Sandy Sorlien
irow right now. Maybe someone here can forward it there, or maybe you
guys know. I have the choice of rowing an Aero (club boat) or an Echo
(my own boat) in my first race, a 3-mile head race on (usually) flat
water. Has anyone compared these boats? Which is faster, all other
things being equal, on flat water? (I could row the Maas 24, but would
be more tense in it, and since I'm training after injury, just don't
want to risk aggravating the rib area.)
It is my personal impression that the Echo is faster, but I have been
rowing it on rough water with wind and swells helping at times.
Charles Carroll
I have rowed both the Aero and the Echo. Hands down the Aero is
faster. The shells are not even competitive. The boats have different
design goals.
The Aero was intended to be raced in very rough water, and in the
hands of a skilled sculler can fly.
The Echo, on the other hand, was designed for novices. It was never
intended to be a fast shell. Think of it as an extremely stable shell
that will do a lot to slow you down. But it is a good trainer and will
give you a taste of what it is like to scull.
But as you increase your skills, and if you become interested in
racing, you will want a shell that does less to slow you down. Of
course a shell that does less to slow you down won't give you that
"feeling of stability" that an Echo will give you. That is something
you will have to provide for yourself.
Cordially,
Charles
Roger
wrote:
I sort of agree with Charles.
The Aero is the faster boat, 21ft long with a round bottom and a
fantastic design. The Echo is 17ft long with basically a flat bottom
and a great rough water design, the Aero is a lot faster except in
very rough conditions where the scullers skill is limited. In rough
conditions if you're not used to them then the Echo may have an edge
as it was designed to deal with rough open water. The Aero was also
designed for open water but feels a little less stable and that freaks
a lot of folks out in really rough water, the limiting factor is the
sculler not the boat. Lastly weight, the Aero is probably under 40lbs
depending on the model, the Echo is about 53lbs (I think). Heavier
boats can have an advantage in rough water, the same is not true on
flat water.
3 mile head race, you'll get down the course a lot quicker in the aero
and they're a joy to row.
Roger
www.virginiarowing.com
Edon Recreational Rowing Boats
Charles Carroll
After I posted I had second thoughts.
The short answer is that the Echo and Aero are two different class
boats.
In OWRC' annual Open Ocean Regatta both the Echo and Aero qualify for
the Long Course, which is 7.6nm, with the start 100m off Sausalito,
CA, "old town" near the sea lion statue, underneath the Golden Gate
Bridge to the buoy off Pt. Diablo, back underneath the Bridge to Buoy
#3, to Cone Rock, and back to the "start," which becomes "the finish."
I am unwilling to rely on my memory, which means of course that you
certainly should not rely on it, but I "seem" to remember that the few
occasions Echos were raced on the Long Course they came in roughly 45
minutes behind the slowest Aero. But I could be very wrong.
Of course these results didn't matter because the Echo was in a class
of its own and for this reason it won its class. The lone Echo
sculler, providing she finished, was given no choice but to come in
first. So if you like to collect pots, it is the way to go, at least
in the OWRC Open Ocean Regatta.
If Sandy chooses to scull her Echoi, does she know who she would be
racing against?
Cordially,
Charles
sully
The Aero has a hull shape that will allow a faster boat speed, and
will
handle most any sort of rough water, except for large rollers, where
the
very low deckline sometimes causes the bow to pearl into a wave.
I've had a wave knock me off my seat, and while the Aero is the
easiest boat anywhere to get back into, it's much harder to do
in big wind chop.
It also depends on how comfortable you are rowing the boat, if you
can row it hard and not defensively. That you recognize this in the
"24" and
not in the Aero suggests that the Aero would be a great choice, unless
the open water wind waves are going to be bigger than 8" for any
sustained
period of time.
Have fun, be safe!
Sandy Sorlien
wrote:
It is unlikely my competition would be in gigs, but I don't know for
sure. If they row regular singles I expect to be beaten, but I do want
to do my best time possible. I'm quite comfortable rowing hard in
either boat, not so much the 24. A bonus to this race (Hutchinson Cup)
is that the club with the most boats entered wins (in our case, keeps)
the cup, so I am helping just by racing. Unfortunately an out-of-town
club suddenly entered 19 boats today! We are being challenged!
Sandy
PS Rowing the Echo in Rhode Island last month, a wave swamped me and
later I noticed a little fish was in the cockpit. I expect that I will
be rowing it in conditions when everyone else is inside in the erg
room. That's why I got it.
Sandy Sorlien
>
> After I posted I had second thoughts.
>
> The short answer is that the Echo and Aero are two different class
> boats.
>
> In OWRC' annual Open Ocean Regatta both the Echo and Aero qualify for
> the Long Course, which is 7.6nm, with the start 100m off Sausalito,
> CA, "old town" near the sea lion statue, underneath the Golden Gate
> Bridge to the buoy off Pt. Diablo, back underneath the Bridge to Buoy
> #3, to Cone Rock, and back to the "start," which becomes "the finish."
>
> I am unwilling to rely on my memory, which means of course that you
> certainly should not rely on it, but I "seem" to remember that the few
> occasions Echos were raced on the Long Course they came in roughly 45
> minutes behind the slowest Aero. But I could be very wrong.
>
Charles, you may be right to be unsure, as I find that hard to
believe.
Results for 2010 Blackburn Challenge http://www.blackburnchallenge.com/Query.asp
show the lone Aero finishing in 4:10:21 with 6 of the 8 Echos all
beating it handily, the fastest at 3:04:41 and the slowest of the 6 at
3:26:23. I think the fact that only one Aero was entered in a long
race with potential for changing conditions tells you something. Well,
maybe it's the East-West Coast difference, too. But I don't think the
Echo is intended only for novices. It beat several of the boats in the
"racing" class (Echo is in "touring" class). Four Echos beat the lone
Maas 24. (All are men so there is some basis to conclude that the
Echos do pretty well.)
That said, in flat water I will go with the Aero next week.
Thanks!
Sandy
ATP
"Sandy Sorlien" <sandys...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:88fb45ae-dc5a-4c7e...@m16g2000vbs.googlegroups.com...
I see three Maas 24's at 3:16 to 3:18, and the slowest Echo's time is 4:23.
It's also unclear whether some of the Echos were Echo Aces. But I think
there's a wide variation in rowing skill at the Blackburn. Boat 29, an
Adirondack Guideboat, came in at 3:48 to win the Fixed Seat Single class.
Paul Neil used to finish even quicker in a fixed seat single guideboat. I
think the guideboat is fast, but those guys are also exceptional rowers and
probably much stronger than some of the slower entrants in shells.
Mike
ATP
"sully" <s...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:c8c8167a-b5f8-4280...@v35g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Have fun, be safe!
**********
I think the 24 is quite stable in rough chop, but you're on the money about
rowing it hard and not defensively. I also know that I will invariably have
a wet ride in the 24 in typical bay conditions, which makes it kind of hard
to row in the cold.
Mike
Sandy Sorlien
> I see three Maas 24's at 3:16 to 3:18, and the slowest Echo's time is 4:23.
> It's also unclear whether some of the Echos were Echo Aces. But I think
> there's a wide variation in rowing skill at the Blackburn. Boat 29, an
> Adirondack Guideboat, came in at 3:48 to win the Fixed Seat Single class.
> Paul Neil used to finish even quicker in a fixed seat single guideboat. I
> think the guideboat is fast, but those guys are also exceptional rowers and
> probably much stronger than some of the slower entrants in shells.
>
> Mike
Hi Mike,
Your point about the variety of rowers in a long open-water race is
well taken. Certainly a boat like the Echo would allow some scullers
to compete and even prevail who are less skilled in flatwater shells
but enjoy rough conditions and can row strong and long. However, I
don't think it's fair to compare the slowest Echo to the three 24s in
another class. (I had not included the other two 24s in my original
comparison because they were women; yes, they did indeed beat *some*
Echos rowed by men -- yet were beaten by four Echos in the supposedly
slower touring class, as was the Aero. That still seems impressive to
me. Why would strong rowers choose a boat that is supposedly "designed
for novices" as Charles claimed? I suspect it is because they are not
designed just for novices. (I have no connection with the company; I
simply I hope to row mine on the ocean - and on the river in the
winter - for many years.)
The link I sent doesn't seem to work now. Anyone interested in this
can go to http://www.blackburnchallenge.com/ and choose 2010 results
and then "List results by class." If you look only at "boat
description," you can't tell what class they're in. It is clear which
Echos are Aces because they are in a different class. The Islander is
essentially the same boat as the standard Echo only with more storage
for longer trips.
Cheers
Sandy
Richard
> and then "List results by class." If you look only at "boat
> description," you can't tell what class they're in. It is clear which
> Echos are Aces because they are in a different class. The Islander is
> essentially the same boat as the standard Echo only with more storage
> for longer trips.
>
> Cheers
> Sandy
Sandy,
With all due respect, you are getting overly analytical about this.
The echo is just not as fast as a Maas Aero. The waterline is much
shorter and the beam wider, and the Maas has a reasonably fast hull
design so an echo would not compare if rowed by skilled scullers. End
of discussion. That's why they have breaks in the classes, often set
at 21 and 24 feet in length. The Echo Ace should be faster than an
Aero since it is longer at 24' probably similar to the Maas 24.
In rough water rowing, as in all rowing, you can sometimes be faster
in a technically slower boat by being more confident in your equipment
and being able to apply more power without worrying about stability.
When you get more skilled, you stay more stable and are able to apply
the power.
Therefore, any limitations in your technique may make you faster in a
technically slower boat. For example, I beat a recent Olympic gold
medalist in an open water race, but that was because he was a sweep
guy and rowing in a wherry ... he could apply lots of power but needed
a big boat to do it in... give him a few months sculling experience in
waves and a similar shell and it would be lights out for me by huge
amounts of time.
I have competed in a number of these open water races and frankly
there is a huge range in abilities of rowers, you just can't draw
these conclusions. Furthermore, as you suggest, Maas's tend to be
west coast boats and for example Pienert's are east coast boats.
The Maas 24 you have used is probably too big of a boat for you. If
your weight range allows, I would suggest a Maas flyweight which is
faster than the Aero and for those under 140 or 150 lbs faster than a
24 for them.
I agree with Sul that the 24 can handle all but the most demanding
conditions. I too have been scared in one at times in the ocean, but
I would have been in almost anything.
ATP
Hi Sandy,
I think you made a good choice for the conditions you are rowing in. I
alternate between my Maas 24 and a Piantedosi Row Wing equipped guideboat.
Although I am getting more competent and comfortable in the 24, I'm
invariably sitting in the wash when I'm rowing in the Great South Bay.
That's not so great in the winter so my guideboat is a bit more practical.
I couldn't even consider a race like the Blackburn right now, but I hope
after some physical therapy and hamstring stretching I can get back into
distance rowing. Currently taking my stand up paddleboard out and
kiteboarding when it's windy enough.
Have fun on the water,
Mike
Sandy Sorlien
> Sandy,
>
> With all due respect, you are getting overly analytical about this.
Richard - You're kidding, right? I thought this was the Overly
Analytical List. ;)
I'm merely clarifying facts about the 2010 Blackburn results (and,
below, about boat specs). I've already said I will take the advice of
the kind people on this list and row the Aero on Saturday, because it
is going to be a flatwater race. Some on the list may be wondering,
"Why is she asking us, why doesn't she just row each shell down her
course and time them." But I cannot do that because I cannot get my
Echo onto the course until race day. Details are too boring to relate.
You wrote:
> The echo is just not as fast as a Maas Aero. The waterline is much
> shorter and the beam wider, and the Maas has a reasonably fast hull
> design so an echo would not compare if rowed by skilled scullers. End
> of discussion.
The Echo is 18' long overall ("overall" is the only length spec Maas
supplies for the Aero), and 26" at beam. That's one inch wider - does
that really make a difference? Is a 3' longer boat automatically
faster? I would guess that the weight of the Echo and the absence of
the deep skeg would have more to do with how the boat performs.
However, because the Echo doesn't track as well as the Aero in flat
water, it actually tests my skills better. If your hands aren't at the
same level, the boat will not track straight. I've found that it
exposes the hand imbalance that the Aero accommodates.
IMPORTANT: I am not disputing the experience of those who have rowed
both shells. What I am *questioning* is a conclusion based on
measurements alone. I'm also questioning the comment someone made that
the Echo was designed for novices. If so, why are scullers with 30
years experience rowing them in the Blackburn?
If "skilled scullers" can handle all conditions in any boat, why don't
they row racing singles in the northern winter on flat water? Why
don't they row singles when it is windy and choppy on the river? Is it
possible that your definition of "skilled scullers" is limited to
flatwater racing, but that one might be more skilled in high swells,
tidal rips, cross-chop, and stiff winds than another rower, precisely
because s/he was able to practice those skills for years in shells
more suitable for rough open water?
Anyway, thanks to all for your counsel!
Cheers,
Sandy
PS The Maas 24 isn't too big for me - I'm 5'7" 160 lbs. Smaller women
at my club say the Peinert 26' is actually easier to row than the Maas
24.
Roger
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well the next question would be - What's the fastest open water racer.
I would say the Maas 24 has it slightly over the Echo Ace but I admit
I've not yet rowed the Ace I'm just going on reputation and of course
how great a boat the Maas 24 is. Anything else out there that could
possibly challange? Peinert Dolphin?
Roger
Richard
Yes, the Peinert is more forgiving than the Maas 24 in many ways
despite it being a faster shell. The 24 has a much more rounded
bottom making its initial lateral instability higher - which makes it
quite responsive to set for smaller swells. I really like the Peinert
26 except I can't adjust it to my preferences (heel to seat height is
too low, but the Maas 24 I can't get enough work through the pin as to
the seat tracks are too short and not adjustable).
Yes, the waterline length does make a difference in speed up to a
point. And that point isn't reached at 21'. The waterline beam is
closer to 2" difference, or 10 percent, and the weight difference is
big too.
We don't row racing singles on flat freezing water not because we
think the odds of falling in are greater (very low) but because if we
do then we die. Club rules don't allow that either.
I do row my racing single in windy and choppy conditions. but you
don't get a good workout from it and you can't work on technical
drills so at some point it is more efficient to erg or do another
workout. Same reason I might not row a maas 24 then either - what's
the point? will i get a good workout, have some fun or accrue more
skill? what am I training for - a flatwater or open water race, just
conditioning, etc?
On normal swells, rowing a flat water racing 1x - they are built more
fragile but importantly they don't self bail either and their cockpits
hold much more water. Yes, we can self bail them rowing fast but not
when more water keeps coming in. Having said that, I wouldn't be
worried in calmer water in a bay rowing my racing 1x.
But if I was to do a real open water race, or constantly encounter
chop not swells, I would row the Maas 24 or a Kingfisher with closed
decks. The 24 is the consistent winner for men in open water races on
the west coast. (of course the racing 1x's when water conditions
allow, are in another group).
Richard
I don't have a view either, but the 24 is a great boat - if they would
allow taller rowers to get through the pin more it would be perfect.
(and I understand why the heel/seat height issue is as it is, since
they want the cockpit volume to be lower so less water gets in it)
Jonny
> > The Maas 24 you have used is probably too big of a boat for you. If
> > your weight range allows, I would suggest a Maas flyweight which is
> > faster than the Aero and for those under 140 or 150 lbs faster than a
> > 24 for them.
The Maas 24 is pretty big and while it rows fine on flat water for
light rowers, I think it prefers 80kg+.
My only suggestion for these events is that you should consider
wearing an ankle leash (as per a surfboard) so that if you are tossed
off you don't have to worry about being separated from the boat. I
have also though that a light cord securing the seat might be in order
as I've seen a few Maas boats lose seats if the rower twists when
falling out.
Carl Douglas
make a few technical points.
1. Length. The length of a typical surface vessel, including a
sculling boat or a canoe, has a strong influence on its maximum
potential speed. A moving boat generates a wave train. Longer means
higher maximum speed because it allows the boat to ride a longer wave
pattern, & longer waves travel faster.
2. Wetted surface. Shortening a boat, if beam & depth are identically
rescaled to give the same waterline & displacement, will reduce its
surface area. Surface moving past water generates skin friction. So in
theory a shorter hull has reduced skin friction. However, since fluid
drag/unit are falls from bow to stern, the apparent benefit of shorter
length reducing area is somewhat diminished.
3. Entry (& exit) angles. Bow sharpness also affects drag, working
against a shorter boat unless its bow angle has been sharpened.
4. Overall size/carrying capacity. Immersed surface area increases
rapidly with the first few % of displacement (where you are dipping a
flattish area into the water) but the rate of that increase falls
steadily for each added unit of crew weight - as the immersed waterline
widens & thus increases the waterplane area. If the boat is just too
large, then the lighter user will be propelling something closer to a
plank than a fine shell, & will pay an unfairly high price in skin
friction as well as suffering from poor entry shape.
5. Imponderables (Cheney's known unknowns?). How well a sculler can
generate & apply useful power under the seaway of the particular race
condition. How well the boat deals with waves & troughs (does it ride
or bury?). Can you more easily keep it upright? How much more or less
confident do you feel in it? Does it track straighter than another? Etc.
What does this all mean? That there are no simple answers, that there
are horses for courses, & that there are horses for riders.
Put simply, in flat-water conditions:
A shorter boat, if well proportioned & correctly sized, has a lower
maximum speed potential but, up to some % of that speed potential
(itself a slightly indeterminate number), it will have a lower power
requirement than its longer relative. If you are not very powerful
(e.g. in an endurance race) then your optimum boat if correctly sized
for you will be somewhat shorter than that for the more powerful person
of similar weight or for the sprint event.
In rough conditions, who knows what works best for whom.
So my central point is that there are no "fastest boats", only boats
which in given conditions & with a given crew may outperform others,
even though they may fail to do so in other circumstances. So the
argument, while very interesting, might be just a tad sterile?
Cheers -
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Find: http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)
Sandy Sorlien
Thank you Carl,
Very interesting summary of factors. To follow up on some of them,
here's a portion of the Echo tech sheet written by the designer:
"Hull Characteristics:
"The hull design considerations for an 18-foot recreational shell
differ from those for a 25-foot or longer racing shell. On the short
hull, wave drag will dominate over skin friction. If a short hull is
rounded [in a] fashion to minimize skin friction, it will pull huge
waves at moderate to high power and feel bogged down with the stern
even immersing on some boats. On the other hand, with favorable
dynamic shaping a short hull can rise into the semi-planing regime at
moderate to high power and actually move faster in proportion to
length than a racing shell.
"Transom stern with S-shape buttock lines: Resists suction and
squatting at high power. - Enables water to break away cleanly at
speed.
High water plane area: Low sinkage – 1 inch per 100 lbs. Means only
a small adjustment in oarlock height for large changes in weight. -
Helps with skimming.
Hard Chines - Maximize stability for a given beam.
Bow Shape - U-shaped sections forward
"Speed in flat water
Soft in waves
Wide and cupped at top to punch through waves."
Again, I'm not representing the company. Just trying to counter
Charles's assertion that it's only a novice boat that slows you down.
They do say it's a "knockabout boat" and I've certainly enjoyed being
able to go out into open ocean (not just bay) as well as close to
rocky shorelines, exploring. But people are racing them, and doing
well.
BTW I just watched Xeno's Olympic race in which a white boat beat all
the other boats, which were all yellow...
Sandy
Richard
On the other hand, with favorable
> dynamic shaping a short hull can rise into the semi-planing regime at
> moderate to high power and actually move faster in proportion to
> length than a racing shell.
> >
I can push a small toy car faster in proportion to its length than an
actual F1 car too... The key phrase here "in proportion to length."
In other words, a racing shell would need to go just under 50% faster
in kts to be at parity in proportion to its length.
But you asked which was faster... And that is why they have classes
based on length...
Carl Douglas
Peak speed varies not linearly but in proportion to square root of
length, Richard. And very fine shells do to a degree break rules
applicable to more conventional hulls.
I'll refrain to comment on the points advanced in the literature for
Sandy's boat.
But Xeno's result must have been a fix - how could he have won if the
boat was the wrong colour ;) ?
sully
I think you missed Carl's very good point that there is a much larger
variance in the fitness, athletic ability, and rowing ability among
the open
water rowers than the boats.
BIAC (the club I teach beginning sculling at) has an annual informal
race
around an island called "corkscrew". It's about a 9 mile race, not
open water
but very well protected. One of the club scullers that raced a few
years ago
was very fit, fairly skilled sculler. Raced a Pocock wherry and
took along his
child for the ride. Beat all but a couple of the singles, racing
singles mind you, and it
was flat water.
Charles Carroll
I am afraid I may have inadvertently insulted you by describing an
Echo as a “novice boat.” Please accept my apologies.
By “novice boat” I did not mean to suggest that Echo only builds boats
for novices. As I am sure you know, Echo has three lines of boats: the
Echo, the Islander, and the Ace. Each boat is designed for a specific
purpose. The Echo is designed for “all skill levels,” the Islander for
“long trips,” and the Ace “to win races in the 24 class in all
conditions, particularly rough water.”
Now let’s go to Carl’s website. At the top of the first page you will
see an epigraph: “’Fitness for purpose,’ our guiding principle is seen
in all we do.” For sure “fitness for purpose” is Carl’s guiding
principle. And I suspect, or hope anyways, that it also happens to be
a guiding principle for other boat builders.
What I am trying to say is that when it comes to understanding a boat
we should begin by looking at the purpose for which that boat was
designed and built.
Since Carl has designed and built a number of different boats, I am
going to limit myself to talking just about my boat. It is 27 feet
long, weighs 30.4 lbs (14 kg), and is about 11.5 inches wide. And what
was the purpose for which this shell was built? It was built to be a
flat-water racing single. As Carl writes, his boats are designed to be
“ultra-light racing shells,” “out-and-out racing machines.” “We know
no faster design. Our boats do less than any other boat to slow you
down. They run true and stay dry. Their minimum-drag hull geometry
knifes through water, smooth or rough, helped by our deep-Vee bow
section.”
I am not giving anything away. This is all public knowledge. You can
find it on Carl’s website. But the point is that Carl did not
compromise his design in any way. He did not design a boat for “all
skill levels,” or for “long trips,” or to win races against Maas 24s
in rough water.
Now I have a question. Would you introduce a novice to sculling by
putting the novice in my Carl Douglas? Speaking only for myself, I can
think of a number of more suitable shells for scullers with
undeveloped skill levels.
But does this mean that shells which accommodate novice scullers are
inferior shells?
Again, speaking only for myself, my answer would be not at all. Some
have been built specifically for novices, while others have been built
for different purposes but happen to accommodate novices very well.
All I meant by saying the Echo is a boat for novices is that it
accommodates novices very well. I didn’t mean to suggest that it wasn’t
fast, or that it wasn’t good in rough water, or anything like that.
If you are used to your Echo, if you scull it as well or better than
you scull an Aero, if it seems as fast to you as an Aero, I cannot
understand why you wouldn’t race it in your regatta next weekend. As
Mike so eloquently put it, chose a shell you can row hard, not
defensively.
Carl just gave us a very interesting lesson on the elements of hull
geometry: length, wetted surface, Entry (& exit) angles, Overall size
/carrying capacity, imponderables, etc.
But exactly how important is hull geometry? Is it the only thing that
slows us down?
I got to thinking about this question and came up with a quick list of
some things that I find slow me down:
- Faulty hull geometry
- Incorrect rigging
- Shells that aren’t self-bailing
- Shells that take on water too readily
- Shells that are the wrong size
- Bad technique
- Slowness at the catch
- Incomplete finishes
- Poor physical conditioning
- Lack of confidence
In thinking about this list, I found myself wondering how I would
prioritize it. Which of the things on this list are more important?
Which are less important?
So how would you prioritize it? Are there things you would add to it?
After you have your list, I suspect it will tell you what shell you
should row.
Warmest regards,
Charles
Charles Carroll
I have often wondered why you and I think so differently about Aeros.
Now, at last, in your mentioning "the Aero's low deck line sometimes
causing its bow to pearl into a wave," you have provided me with a
clue.
It has to do with the difference in our sizes. My guess is that you
are about 7 inches taller than I am, and maybe 40 to 50 lbs heavier.
And this added height and weight give you a different experience from
mine in an Aero.
To use a phrase Walter used with me a couple of years ago, whenever I
scull an Aero I feel as if I am "bobbing up and down on the water like
a cork." The Aero is just too big for me. And I know a couple of
people in Sausalito who feel the same way and who also happen to be
small like I myself. All of us are constantly getting into arguments
about the differences in stability between 24s and Aeros. And now I
got it! As a general rule, small people prefer 24s, larger people
prefer Aeros.
This, by the way, may throw some light on Sandy's question. Somehow I
am under the impression that Sandy is small, around 145 lbs or less.
If so, then I would second the suggestion that Sandy try the Maas
Flyweight.
Chris Maas has said that the Flyweight is the best shell he has ever
designed. Ironically, it has been the only one of his shells he has
never been able to scull. He is just too big for it.
In Sausalito the people who scull Flyweights scull them in every kind
of water. The Flyweight is just a superb shell. It handles
beautifully, bails well, can be sculled in all kinds of water, is easy
to get into if you have been tossed out of it, and does very little to
slow you down. I have never known anyone who has rowed a Flyweight who
doesn't have a good opinion of it.
Cordially,
Charles
sully
wrote:
I like all the Maas boats, but they are all sized the same, so
different sized ppl
are going to have different rows. I agree with you on the Flyweight,
it's a wonderfully
designed boat, and we reserve them exclusively for women who haven't
the upper body
strength to carry down a training single or a "24" by themselves.
You're right, I am substantially bigger than you, but I still "bob"
in an Aero in choppy
water, it's the longer period wind swells rowing under power that
create
the "pearling". I've heard other scullers lighter than I am run into
the same
phenomenon, indeed it was 155 lb lightweight that told me about it
before I experienced
it myself.
After about dozen times sculling, most people prefer rowing in the
"24" than
the Aero, though it is not sized well for small people, I can't get
them rigged
correctly. The footboard plates are just too far from the pin,
there's no room to remount
the stretcher plates closer to the pin, nor is there adjustments fore
and aft for the
outriggers like the "27" has (which drives me nuts anyway, ppl keep
changing them
on the club boats :)
Having taught as many ppl as I have and seen so many of them row for a
while,
I take boat preferences with a grain of salt. I see loyalties to
particular boats wax and
wane, often based upon an old wives tale, or a bad day in a particular
boat, then rumors grow with
each group that comes through.
One man I taught to scull as a beginner was struggling in a single,
just not improving and getting
frustrated. I suggested to him that he split time in single and
aero, and made one
suggestions in his single. He told me he didn't like to row the
Aeros because he couldn't
get his oars off the water, his hands scraped his thighs.
We have about a dozen Aeros, I asked him if he'd been rowing "107".
He wasn't sure.
I learned that 107 oddly had a lower rigger height range, the Maas
Aero rigger jig inexplicably changes
in minor ways over the years, or maybe some production control
trouble. I use it to advantage
rigging it really low for small people to be more comfy in the Aero.
I tell ppl this, when I
remember, and sometimes THEY remember. I imagine some big ppl have
some miserable
rows some times!! :^(
He wasn't sure, so he launched another Aero that day, had a grand
time.
Sandy Sorlien
>
> I think you missed Carl's very good point that there is a much larger
> variance in the fitness, athletic ability, and rowing ability among
> the open
> water rowers than the boats.
Hi Sully,
I didn't miss it. Mike made it first, and I acknowledged it thusly:
"Hi Mike,
Your point about the variety of rowers in a long open-water race is
well taken. Certainly a boat like the Echo would allow some scullers
to compete and even prevail who are less skilled in flatwater shells
but enjoy rough conditions and can row strong and long."
Charles, thanks for your apology. You didn't insult me, for I am
indeed a novice, age 56, rowing in Masters Women Novice this weekend,
my first USRowing race. But I was little depressed to hear that I may
have just purchased a boat that I would be tired of by next year.
However, I don't think that's true. I'm not using the Echo to find out
what sculling is all about -- I had a good general idea of that before
I bought it. I'd taken many lessons, trained on the water, raced in a
little club race, trained on the erg, raced in the Crash B sprints,
read literature, and rowed the Aero (230 miles), the Maas 24 (75
miles), the Peinert 26 (6 miles), and the Echo (a mile) and rowed on
three bodies of water and in different conditions. I had picked the
brains of this list, the irow list, and my fellow club members in
Philadelphia. I'd read the websites of the manufacturers and watched
their CDs. All that before choosing a boat to buy primarily for bay/
ocean rowing. I'm 5'7" and 160 lbs and therefore too big for the
Flyweight. One advantage of the Echo over the Aero and every other
shell I've seen - and this is very important - is that I can move it
by myself. Yes, it weighs 13 pounds more than the Aero, but because
the riggers fold in and become handles - an ingenious design, IMO - it
is much less awkward, and is tougher than most shells so can slide
onto my cartop Mako saddles, and can be pulled on Paddleboy wheels on
the beach. All that worked splendidly in Rhode Island this summer. I
couldn't have been happier. No weather, not even the waves from
(fading) Hurricane Earl, kept me off the water. I put 100 miles on it
in August.
For me, a boat that I couldn't row in wind or in winter is a boat not
being rowed. I don't love erging, I love rowing.
Cheers,
Sandy
Sandy Sorlien
wrote:
<snip>
> But exactly how important is hull geometry? Is it the only thing that
> slows us down?
>
> I got to thinking about this question and came up with a quick list of
> some things that I find slow me down:
>
> - Faulty hull geometry
> - Incorrect rigging
> - Shells that aren’t self-bailing
> - Shells that take on water too readily
> - Shells that are the wrong size
> - Bad technique
> - Slowness at the catch
> - Incomplete finishes
> - Poor physical conditioning
> - Lack of confidence
>
> In thinking about this list, I found myself wondering how I would
> prioritize it. Which of the things on this list are more important?
> Which are less important?
>
> So how would you prioritize it? Are there things you would add to it?
>
> After you have your list, I suspect it will tell you what shell you
> should row.
>
> Warmest regards,
>
> Charles
Thank you Charles. I've only begun to learn the variables of rigging,
though I have studied it some. In rough water, it matters whether you
are rowing more aft or more forward, and must sometimes adjust for
every stroke in wild chop. I've tried rowing with the stretchers set
at every possible position, an interesting exercise. I've tried having
the left oarlock higher than the right, and with both the same.
(Prefer the latter.) However, so far what I find slows me down most
(other than my imbalanced hand level and leg drive, forgiven by the
Aero but not by the Echo, interestingly, and certainly not by the 24),
is the oar handles. One, they must not slip or blisters slow me down
(after a few miles). My technique is the biggest problem there; my
right hand suffers very little, acquiring useful calluses only and
none in my palm, but my left hand acquires blisters, sometimes in my
palm. I'm very righthanded so it's obvious I'm not coordinated enough
with my left yet to keep it from slipping. Oar handle size and
material make a difference. Gripping vs pulling with lighter contact
makes a difference. And where the handles are at the release makes a
difference - not enough clearance (handle separation) creates
potential for a hangup. On rough water I wear a PFD (Stormy Seas short
vest with CO2 cartridge) and so my stroke is shorter to avoid hitting
it. I'm used to it; doesn't bother me.
I would add to your list: cracked ribs. ;)
Cheers
Sandy
PS The Echo seat is much more comfortable than the Aero. (I do not
know the vintage of our club Aeros.)
