Significance of Lightweight Boat
Srplatt
my understanding that the lightweight category ends at 165 lbs. I weigh
195, what's the downside to my rowing a lightweight boat?
Thanks,
Steve
---------------------------
Steve Platt/srp...@aol.com
Swan Creek Rowing Club
Lambertville, NJ
Jay Feenan
In article <3kpdi6$i...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, srp...@aol.com (Srplatt) writes...
>What is the significance of a boat designed for lightweight rowers? It's
>my understanding that the lightweight category ends at 165 lbs. I weigh
>195, what's the downside to my rowing a lightweight boat?
>
>Thanks,
>Steve
A discussed about a week ago. A boat designed for lightweights is different
than a boat sized for lightweights. But in either case, the boat is designed to
carry say 160 lbs. On the second question...
Not enough freeboard and your 'plowing' through the water [not optimal wetted
surface area]. The biggest problem will end up being that you probably will
submerge your stern at the catch.
-Jay Feenan
Douglas Gibbs
> What is the significance of a boat designed for lightweight rowers? It's
> my understanding that the lightweight category ends at 165 lbs. I weigh
> 195, what's the downside to my rowing a lightweight boat?
Well as a down side you could literally go down, to the bottom of
the river! If you are 195 in a 165 boat you'll have it so far into
the water that in any kind of swell or ruff water you'll be taking in
more water than you would want to, if you're 195 GET A HEAVYWEIGHT single!
Is that a good enough down side?
roger hobby
from my understanding. ideally your seat should be at water level. thus, if
the boat sits higher in the water you will need more weight to get the seat
to h2o level. thus, a heavy weight boat. so a heavyweight rower will have too
much hull in the water making speed more difficult, while a lightweight rower
in a heavyweight boat will have too much hull OUT of the water. so this rower
would have a more difficult time of setting the boat. also, lightweight boats
are not always made to withstand the weight of a heavy rower. hope this
helps!!!
roger hobby
brandeis ltwts
Richard Engelbrecht-Wiggans
st93...@pip.cc.brandeis.edu (roger hobby) writes:
> ... ideally your seat should be at water level. ...
I have heard this before...and it still doesn't make sense to me.
On my shells, the top of the boats seat (and, therefore, the
bottom of my butt) is about 4 inches above water level. In fact,
my butt is wide enough that there is no way it could be sqeeeeezed
into the 11 or so inches beam that a racing single has at its
waterline.
BTW, its not too hard to calculate that putting an extra 35 pounds
into a racing single would lower it less than 1/2 of one inch. Thus
I doubt that this amount of extra weight would significantly increase
the chance of swamping. However, 1/2 inch might well be enough to
sink the rear deck below water at the catch...which has all sorts
of adverse hydrodynamic effects.
In my "parts" pile, I have what appears to be a hull only (no deck,
framework, etc.) from a light weight single. If so, then its designed
for someone about 30 pounds lighter than me. But I believe that it
would work reasonably well for me with a sliding rigger (instead of
sliding seat) and...for quite some time now...have been thinking of
fixing up this hull to accept the drop in sliding rigger unit that I
made for my canoe.
Richard
Jay Feenan
In article <1736ABA9...@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu>, EPL...@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu (Richard Engelbrecht-Wiggans) writes...
>In article <3kr26c$j...@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
>st93...@pip.cc.brandeis.edu (roger hobby) writes:
>
>> ... ideally your seat should be at water level. ...
>
>I have heard this before...and it still doesn't make sense to me.
>On my shells, the top of the boats seat (and, therefore, the
>bottom of my butt) is about 4 inches above water level. In fact,
.
.
This depends on the boat type. You will not find it in a single or
double...you will find this in an eight. What is 'constant' in all of these
boats is the relationship of the feet and the seat [in terms of height].
-Jay
Rachel Quarrell
following snippet from the April issue of REGATTA?
"The Materials Commission of FISA reported that they are exploring
the possibility of adapting boats so that they can be used by lightweights
and heavyweights, thus putting crews on equal terms, eliminating the need
for lightweight boat classes, thereby reducing the number of events and
opening the Olympics to all rowers."
I'd advise not shooting off about this: a) it's obviously an idea in
infancy, b) I'm sure they mean adjustable-weight boats c) this is just a
brief synopsis of a more complex report. So, Ron, what are they up to
then?
Rachel.
Oxford.
p.s. those wishing to enter a contribution for May REGATTA, the deadline
is 30th March, and I need stuff by email by noon GMT to allow for our
local vax system to piss me around.
_________________________________________________
Life is short. Row hard.
Paul Thomas
Rachel Quarrell <quar...@vax.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>On the subject of boats, anyone (Ron?!) got any sensible comments on the
>following snippet from the April issue of REGATTA?
>
> "The Materials Commission of FISA reported that they are exploring
>the possibility of adapting boats so that they can be used by lightweights
>and heavyweights, thus putting crews on equal terms, eliminating the need
>for lightweight boat classes, thereby reducing the number of events and
>opening the Olympics to all rowers."
Surely the best thing to do is just make some kind of device which is
dragged behind the boat during racing. Then there is no need to build
special boats.
Paul.
-
paul....@eng.ox.ac.uk
Jeremy Martin
> the possibility of adapting boats so that they can be used by lightweights
> and heavyweights, thus putting crews on equal terms, eliminating the need
> for lightweight boat classes, thereby reducing the number of events and
> opening the Olympics to all rowers."
This isn't at all clear. However it seems to me that there would be no need
for "lightweight" rowing if lightweights were permitted to race in lighter,
purpose-built boats.
At the moment FISA imposes minimum boat-weights for each boat category.
This places lighter oarsmen at a disadvantage relative to heavyweights, because
they are required to pull along a greater proportion of dead weight.
In my view this is the main reason why the top lightweights are slower than
the top heavyweights.
This problem could be removed either by making the minimum boat weight
permissable proportional to the weight of the crew, or by removing the
restrictions altogether, so that lightweight crews could row in lighter,
smaller, scaled-down craft (Obviously it might not be quite as simple as
this -- but you get the idea)
In the old days boats were much heavier, and this is where the idea of
lightweights needing to compete in separate events came from. With modern
materials the gap has been closed. I would like to see some of the current
British lighweight world champions racing as heavyweights in the next Olympics.
Jeremy Martin
Jay Feenan
In article <quarrell-270...@macnugget.dp.ox.ac.uk>, quar...@vax.ox.ac.uk (Rachel Quarrell) writes...
>On the subject of boats, anyone (Ron?!) got any sensible comments on the
>following snippet from the April issue of REGATTA?
>
> "The Materials Commission of FISA reported that they are exploring
>the possibility of adapting boats so that they can be used by lightweights
>and heavyweights, thus putting crews on equal terms, eliminating the need
>for lightweight boat classes, thereby reducing the number of events and
>opening the Olympics to all rowers."
.
.
This is not correct. It should be worded something like...The Materials
Commission of FISA are exploring development of boats designed for each weight
class of athlete and then normalizing the weight of the crews.
It is just an idea, as you stated, in infancy form. The idea is developed off
the experience of the 'FISA designed boats'. These boats were designed
specific to heavyweight women [I believe] as well they are used by
lightweights. As referenced in other discussions in this newsgroup they are
designed specifically for a weight class...instead of a 'cut down version' of a
single heavy-weigth boat design [as has been the classical approach to boat
building]. If you track the improvements of the weight class/womens boats by
boat type...something the materials commission does...they suggest that there
has been significant gains in speed over the years by rowing these boats.
For the engineering types...think of a lightweight women 4- and the boats that
they row. If you really look at the crew weight and compare that to other
crews they should be able to row in a hull that has the same displacement as a
heavy mens 2+.
So the first step is designing boats that match the crew size. Next is then
normalizing the size of the crew to the weight in the boat. Again it is an
engineering problem. How much power can a crew generate and how much loss is
there through an optimally designed hull. Looking at this...both are
proportional to the size [read weight] of the crew. Thus the idea is to
normalize the crews. Thus a bigger crew would then have to carry weight [isn't
horse racing like this :-)].
The two things to think about is the saying, bigger is better may be history
and heavy-weight crews may read more of the information related to weighing in.
:-)
Again to stress this...this is just an idea that some have to open up rowing
around the world, just like the idea of standardizing boat designs.
-Jay Feenan
STEVEGANTZ
accomodate lightweight rowers, I thought I might add two points regarding
boats, in this case 8+ shells:
Beginning in either '95 or '96, FISA will require all eights to be
sectional. This is a concession to the cost of transporting boats that
cannot fit in the largest standard shipboard containers, which are 45 feet
long. The only way to ensure fairness in this regard is to make them
universally required, which is the plan. Mike Vespoli mentioned that
sectioning a hull (even at 7-seat, which is the now-favored location) adds
3-4 kilograms to his boats.
While talking to Mike about boat weights (our lightweight D-hull in
Argentina weighed somewhere around 98 kilos, comfortably over the 93 kg
minimum) one of the team leaders asked him how light an eight he could
make. He said about 88 kilos. I think the idea of making lighter boats
for lightweights is largely nonsensical, because the decrease in strength
among lightweight rowers compared to their open counterparts is not
proportional to weight. Lightweights require a boat strong enough to
avoid cracking ribs or failing under racing stress, just as heavies do.
Recent experience among heavyweight crews with breaking ribs in
minimum-weight eights suggests that maybe the big guys need heavier
shells. I'm not at all confident that reducing the weight of shells any
further would avoid compromising their reliability. Just my $.02.
Paul Thomas
Jeremy Martin <jer...@vax.oxford.ac.uk> wrote:
>This isn't at all clear. However it seems to me that there would be no need
>for "lightweight" rowing if lightweights were permitted to race in lighter,
>purpose-built boats.
There is one other point---the extra muscle power of a heavyweight rower
more than compensates for the extra drag experienced by the boat sitting
lower in the water, so even though the boats might weigh the theoretical
minimum (nil?), an equivalently good heavyweight always has an advantage
over a lightweight.
Paul.
-
paul....@eng.ox.ac.uk
Jay Feenan
In article <3l7cpj$j...@morrow.stanford.edu>, GC....@forsythe.stanford.edu (Sullys Maze) writes...
|>In article <3l6tqc$j...@jac.zko.dec.com>,
|>fee...@nova.enet.dec.com (Jay Feenan) writes:
|>>
|>deletia
|>>
|>>The two things to think about is the saying, bigger is better may be history
|>>and heavy-weight crews may read more of the information related to weighing in.
|>>:-)
|>
|>
|>Mike
Ah, the one person I wanted to pickup on this...mission accomplished!...that
discussion must be coming up on its 2 year anniversary.
:-)
-Jay
Stuart Fogg
Paul Thomas <tpf...@dutch.eng> wrote:
>Surely the best thing to do is just make some kind of device which is
>dragged behind the boat during racing. Then there is no need to build
>special boats.
Just drag the cox'n behind the boat. Then there is no need to make some
kind of a device.
--
Stuart Fogg
Diablo Valley College
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
sf...@dvc.edu
Stuart Fogg
The drag on a shell is less than proportional to its displacement so
just equalizing ratios of boat weight to crew weight won't work. For
example, consider the difference in speed between a 1X and a 4X. Any
formula devised to equalize light and heavy crews would be complicated
and would also have to account for the greater power to weight ratio of
lighter people. Perhaps it could be done empirically like age handicaps
for masters.
Rupert Bader
6'2" guy) and so have longer levers on which to exert their extra muscle
power. I don't think the weight of the boat is significant at all in
accounting for the difference in times between hwt and lwt crews. Of
course we all know that heavyweights are less coordinated and far stupider
than lightweights, so maybe some kind of IQ handicapping would be in order
;-).
Rupert
--
--- " Among what rushes will they build,
--- By what lake's edge or pool
--- Delight men's eyes when I awake some day
--- To find they have flown away?"
---- W.B. Yeats ----
Amy Abbot
vs. athletic power makes me ponder the relationship to the America's Cup.
In the early years, racing was between fishing schooners, hardly
optimized to racing. As the races became more organized there was a
switch to One-Design racing. Until the mid-1980s, hulls were fairly
comparable (even within the 'flexible' rules of the 12-meter class). It
was in the 80s when seamanship began to take a back seat to science.
Ribblets (3M), winged keels, ultra-light materials gave the advantage to
whichever crew could raise enough money to 'buy' the best technology.
It is a fine line though, as was exemplified when the America's Cup
experienced its first sinking in the event's history. The hull design of
ultralight material, cut away stern, optimized for racing, folded up like
a paper cup when faced with conditions for which the designers had not
intended. Similar catastrophes have occurred, with more drastic results,
in the BOC around the world race.
You may be wondering, "why is she babbling about sailing? This is
rec.sport.rowing." As rowers we are faced with the same dilema. I think
that past decisions on design (e.g. winged riggers, ribblets) have
allowed the playing field to remain fairly level. We have not bowed to
the sirens of science and technology alone. For the most part we still
test the skill and training of the athletes not the design of the equipment.
There will always be advances in material and design, and we will rightly
take advantage of them. Here's where the second consideration comes,
when do our designs becomes so specialized and optimized for performing
under particular conditions that they may become a potential hazard when
those conditions are not met. How should we meet the future and all that
it has to offer?
Pardon my "wibbling". Just a thought.
Amy Abbot
seaw...@u.washington.edu
Jay Feenan
In article <3l6v4l$i...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, steve...@aol.com (STEVEGANTZ) writes...
>In perusing the suggestions for boats "scaled down" in weight to
>accomodate lightweight rowers, I thought I might add two points regarding
>boats, in this case 8+ shells:
There have been two discussions and I'm confused on which on you are commenting
on. One discussion had to do with lightweight boats, scaled down in design.
This is not in terms of weight of the boat, but in terms of the hull design.
This yields a better wetted surface area. In conjunction with this the builder
may use less material, hence lighter in weight...but most are build at FISA
weight or just below.
The other discussion was with the idea of getting rid of weight categories.
Although someone suggested that boats could be made lighter [and I guess what
prompted this response]. It was relative weight between the crews. Thus the
heavier crew would have weight added to the boat.
Just trying to keep the two points seperate....
-Jay
.
.
.
P D Sheen
>What is the significance of a boat designed for lightweight rowers? It's
>my understanding that the lightweight category ends at 165 lbs. I weigh
>195, what's the downside to my rowing a lightweight boat?
It sinking :(
Paul
Trevor Chambers
>
> In the old days boats were much heavier, and this is where the idea of
> lightweights needing to compete in separate events came from. With modern
> materials the gap has been closed. I would like to see some of the current
> British lighweight world champions racing as heavyweights in the next
> Olympics.
>
Surely you weren't referring to a certain Peter Haining were you :-)))
Trev
Sudbury RC
Adam ELGAR
In article <3la5d8$10...@nntp2.u.washington.edu>, Amy Abbot (seaw...@u.washington.edu) writes:
>This thread of materials optimization and previous posts of technology
>vs. athletic power makes me ponder the relationship to the America's Cup.
>
>In the early years, racing was between fishing schooners, hardly
>optimized to racing. As the races became more organized there was a
>switch to One-Design racing. Until the mid-1980s, hulls were fairly
>comparable (even within the 'flexible' rules of the 12-meter class). It
>was in the 80s when seamanship began to take a back seat to science.
>Ribblets (3M), winged keels, ultra-light materials gave the advantage to
>whichever crew could raise enough money to 'buy' the best technology.
>
some of the finest racing in the America's cup (or farce) was in
those halcyon days of 83 and 87 - but then I'm biased. In reality,
the thing which made the Austrlians win in 83 was the simple fact
that they were the better crew (in later trials it was accepted
that in fact the fastest boat in 83 was Victory) - didn't do us
much good though!! - Ref the recent One Austrilia sinking it is
nothing new that racing yachts are perhaps under engineered back
in 83 Australia 2 was always having problems with her steering gear
(it gave up the ghost completely in a couple of races) and - even
further back in the 1880s there was a defender from Boston (Reliance
I belive) which literally fell apart before completing the defender
trials.
>It is a fine line though, as was exemplified when the America's Cup
>experienced its first sinking in the event's history. The hull design of
>ultralight material, cut away stern, optimized for racing, folded up like
>a paper cup when faced with conditions for which the designers had not
>intended.
Might the race committee take some blame here? - why on earth
design a boat or - anything else for that matter to withstand all
possible conditions when it was stated in the notice of race that
their would be a limit on the conditions that the boats would be
allowed to race in ( the racing had contiuned in conditions that
exceeded these limits)
> You may be wondering, "why is she babbling about sailing? This is
>rec.sport.rowing."
I'm not Amy as you so rightly say rowers are faced with the same
dilemas faced by the sailors the difference is while there are
literally hundereds of differnt classes of sail boats we only have
relitivly few. and there aren't that many things that can be done
to a hull in terms of design or construction that havent already
been tried. What is important is that rowing learns from the
mistakes made in sailing (ie class proliferation (leading to a
dilutuion of talent) and escalation of cost)
>
>Pardon my "wibbling". Just a thought.
No problem Amy, it's better that the Hartmann and Mulligan show>
>
Gideon
Furnivall Sculler
First Europe Communications 85 Clerkenwell Road
ael...@firsteurop.win-uk.net London EC1R 5AR
Tel: +44 (0)171 404 0424 UK
Fax: +44 (0)171 404 7733
Paul Thomas
Stuart Fogg <sf...@viking.dvc.edu> wrote:
>and would also have to account for the greater power to weight ratio of
>lighter people.
I think this is wrong. Heavier rowers have a better power to weight ratio,
since muscle tissue has a large power/weight ratio and heavyweights have more
muscle. Maybe.
We need an expert opinion...
Paul.
-
paul....@eng.ox.ac.uk
Stuart Fogg
Paul Thomas <tpf...@dutch.eng> wrote:
# text deleted #
>Heavier rowers have a better power to weight ratio, since muscle tissue
>has a large power/weight ratio and heavyweights have more muscle.
>Maybe.
# text deleted #
Smaller people have a greater surface/volume ratio in the capillaries,
lungs, and other parts involved in aerobic power. Look at the size of
a typical Tour de France winner; power to weight ratio is the decisive
factor on the climbs.
This opinion is hardly expert. Can any experts out there help?
Lungstrum Richard
of different weights could very simply be researched empirically.
You'd have to get the weights of the athletes, and their average
wattage outputs for pieces of standard duration (measured either
by time or work output), and divide the latter by the former.
If CII would keep weight records, it would be possible to find
the average power output for recorded pieces by formula. Then
we'd know. You'd want a nice, big data pool like CII keep, and
you'd want to describe both the range (how many watts per kg
body mass max and min) and the distribution (deciles or quartiles)
for different age and weight cohorts (use the age and weight
groups CII already uses). I think it would be interesting also
to have shorter and longer pieces to compare, to see where
an advantage is greater for either power or endurance.
For sanctioned CII events, lightweights already have to weigh in;
if all contestants weighed in and records were kept over the next
year, we could have a pretty fair study ready to do by the timee
the '96 rankings came out from CII....
RWL
RMRC Boulder
(sorry for the one vague sentence--my seventh line should read
"...average body mass specific power output...."
gotta love that vi)
Brian C. Crounse
lung...@spot.Colorado.EDU (Lungstrum Richard) writes:
> The question of the relative power to weight ratios of rowers
> of different weights could very simply be researched empirically.
> You'd have to get the weights of the athletes, and their average
> wattage outputs for pieces of standard duration (measured either
> by time or work output), and divide the latter by the former.
I seem to remember a group at the Crash-B's weighing and getting the
height of rowers for some sort of study. I presume they might have
been doing something like this. Any idea of what happened to this?
Brian
b...@dartmouth.edu
If they can't be tracked down, I'd being willing to volunteer to do a
survey of the rsr community... more to follow.