Why Empacher?

[Newsgroups]

Hello,

This is likely to be a long read, so please forgive me in advance.

I am aware that this topic has probably been visited many times over the
years, but I have yet to find any definitive answers given in any of the
previous incarnations of such a discussion. What I want is to get
constructive and helpful responses and not the sort of responses that start
with ...

"Well, because they are, so don't worry about it!"

Or

"A friend of mine said that ...."

Or those sorts of responses that you'll often find within forums that are
unhelpful, ambiguous or plain rude.

If possible, I am trying to find a general consensus as to why Empacher
shells are so popular at the highest levels of competition. Sure, there are
several other shell manufacturers that are also popular, but from an overall
view it seems that Empacher still dominate and I'm wanting to try and find
out exactly why.

Now, before some of you out there want to flame me for casting any doubts
over the pedigree or quality of Empacher's, then please know that I am not
in any way trying to say that Empacher does not deserve its place at the top
of the sport. No, I simply want to be given tangible and objective reasons
as to why.

Some of you may already be thinking that the choice of boat you like - or
you and your crew prefer with regards to boat manufacturer is often a highly
personal and therefore subjective one. I understand this, but then my
question is still valid; Why do so many choose Empacher's? Even if the
reasons are personal taste, there are so many crews at the World
Championships that make that choice - so please tell me why.

What things make Empachers your first choice over other quality
manufacturers?

From a more objective viewpoint, I look at the specifications of one quality
shell manufacturer over another and if the supposed absolutes of weight,
stiffness, durability, rigging flexibility and price are concerned then
there are many
other choices that match or exceed those of Empacher in terms of one or more
of the above attributes.

For example, according to independent tests of stiffness, Vespoli make
generally stiffer shells than Empacher. In addition, other manufacturers
appear to have spent a lot of time and money refining hull designs where I
can't find any such references by Empacher.

So, let's take another shell attribute; weight. If we assume that most
manufacturers build their boats to FISA minimum weights, then surely most
boats are all on the same playing field in this respect?

Let's ask the same question in a more illustrative way perhaps.

Why can't a crew win at the highest level in a Janousek instead of an
Empacher? If build stats are to be believed then a Janousek is the same
weight, stiffness and uses proven hull designs (e.g VEB).?

Please do not reply by saying that "Janouseks are crap!". That sort of
response is just not useful

I've noticed that Filippi shells are also popular choices at the highest
levels, but boat selections often appear to be experiments or "Let's see how
this boat feels" before in many cases (although not all of course) the crews
in question revert back to Empacher.

Perhaps boat choices are a little like fashion. You want to try something
because you see others doing so. For example, back in the 2000 Olympics
Vespoli had Gold, Silver and 5th places in the men's heavyweight final. Team
GB used their Vespoli shell to achieve their Gold medal, but the following
season have reverted back to Empacher. Back around 2006 I think, there were
an explosion of Filippi's on the scene and I think that a substantial
percentage of boats used in that years World Championships were Filippi.
Subsequent years have seen many crews that used Filippi go back to using
Empacher.

It's not, of course, always a one-way street. A few years ago I recall the
final of the mens lightweight eight at the World Championships and thought
it interesting that the German crew won Gold in an Italian Filippi and the
Italian men competed in a German Empacher!

Several of the top U.S colleges have switched from Vespoli's to Empacher
despite the change costing them up to 50% more and according to coaches the
German shells being somewhat more fragile. Even Mike Vespoli was told by one
of these colleges coaches that the Empachers were "Flying machines.".

So, my question remains: Why?

Could we be talking psychology as much as technology? Do people "think" they
perform better because they have an Empacher? Or is it more a case of
feeling you must have what the majority is using in order to feel
competitive?

I've heard it said when asking why Empacher that "No coach was ever fired
for choosing Empacher.". Perhaps this very sentiment is quite telling.

Anyway, I think you get what I'm really wanting to know here via my
ramblings. it would be useful for those who've used several top shell
manufacturers including Empacher to try and give me an objective - or at
least a tangible subjective reason as to why Empacher dominates at the top
level of the sport.

Please enlighten me as it's a question I've pondered over for many years.


--

Regards

Steve

[Henry Law]

On 15/07/12 13:06, Newsgroups wrote:
> Perhaps boat choices are a little like fashion

Wrong. They're a lot like it, IMO. Perhaps entirely due to it.

Let me offer an analogy, from a world of which I know more than I do
about buying boats for top-rank crews. Go into an electric guitar shop
anywhere in the country and look at their best instruments. You see
Gibson and Fender primarily. Beautiful instruments, to be sure, and
they play very well; but are they absolutely the best that can be had,
for the prices asked? No, not by anyone's estimation. But they are
primarily the instruments played by the greats ... Clapton, Green,
Knopfler, Welch, Green, the three Kings and so on. And that's primarily
why they sell to the masses; Joe Guitarslinger believes that if he has
one of those instruments he'll be just that bit better. And (to follow
up another of your points), perhaps because he believes it it becomes true.

Rowers, like the masses of humanity, are simple folk, some of whom
believe in fables and witchcraft which the principles of physics and
engineering can show to be clearly untrue. So for as long as they
believe that rowing in a yellow boat will allow them to play (sorry,
row) like the greats, yellow boats is what they'll buy unless there's a
very good reason to do otherwise. I'm pretty sure my club would, next
time a blue moon rises over the Bridgewater.

By the way the "good reason to do otherwise" might just be durability.
You're talking about boat choice for the elite; for a club purchasing a
three-year old boat handed down from an elite club, and intending to
keep it as their "best" boat for several years, the decision might be
quite different.

--

Henry Law Manchester, England

[Fordmeister]

On Sunday, July 15, 2012 1:06:57 PM UTC+1, Newsgroups wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This is likely to be a long read, so please forgive me in advance.
>
> I am aware that this topic has probably been visited many times over the
> years, but I have yet to find any definitive answers given in any of the
> previous incarnations of such a discussion. What I want is to get
> constructive and helpful responses and not the sort of responses that start
> with ...
>

> "Well, because they are, so don't worry about it!"
>
> Or
>
> "A friend of mine said that ...."
>
> Or those sorts of responses that you'll often find within forums that are

> unhelpful, ambiguous or plain rude.
>
> If possible, I am trying to find a general consensus as to why Empacher
> shells are so popular at the highest levels of competition. Sure, there are
> several other shell manufacturers that are also popular, but from an overall

> view it seems that Empacher still dominate and I'm wanting to try and find

> out exactly why.
>
> Now, before some of you out there want to flame me for casting any doubts

> over the pedigree or quality of Empacher's, then please know that I am not

> in any way trying to say that Empacher does not deserve its place at the top
> of the sport. No, I simply want to be given tangible and objective reasons
> as to why.
>
> Some of you may already be thinking that the choice of boat you like - or
> you and your crew prefer with regards to boat manufacturer is often a highly
> personal and therefore subjective one. I understand this, but then my

> question is still valid; Why do so many choose Empacher's? Even if the

> reasons are personal taste, there are so many crews at the World
> Championships that make that choice - so please tell me why.
>
> What things make Empachers your first choice over other quality
> manufacturers?
>
> From a more objective viewpoint, I look at the specifications of one quality
> shell manufacturer over another and if the supposed absolutes of weight,
> stiffness, durability, rigging flexibility and price are concerned then
> there are many
> other choices that match or exceed those of Empacher in terms of one or more
> of the above attributes.
>
> For example, according to independent tests of stiffness, Vespoli make
> generally stiffer shells than Empacher. In addition, other manufacturers
> appear to have spent a lot of time and money refining hull designs where I

> can't find any such references by Empacher.
>
> So, let's take another shell attribute; weight. If we assume that most

> manufacturers build their boats to FISA minimum weights, then surely most
> boats are all on the same playing field in this respect?
>

> Let's ask the same question in a more illustrative way perhaps.
>
> Why can't a crew win at the highest level in a Janousek instead of an

> Empacher? If build stats are to be believed then a Janousek is the same
> weight, stiffness and uses proven hull designs (e.g VEB).?
>

> Please do not reply by saying that "Janouseks are crap!". That sort of

> response is just not useful
>

> I've noticed that Filippi shells are also popular choices at the highest
> levels, but boat selections often appear to be experiments or "Let's see how
> this boat feels" before in many cases (although not all of course) the crews

> in question revert back to Empacher.
>
> Perhaps boat choices are a little like fashion. You want to try something
> because you see others doing so. For example, back in the 2000 Olympics

> Vespoli had Gold, Silver and 5th places in the men's heavyweight final. Team

> GB used their Vespoli shell to achieve their Gold medal, but the following
> season have reverted back to Empacher. Back around 2006 I think, there were

> an explosion of Filippi's on the scene and I think that a substantial

> percentage of boats used in that years World Championships were Filippi.
> Subsequent years have seen many crews that used Filippi go back to using
> Empacher.
>

> It's not, of course, always a one-way street. A few years ago I recall the

> final of the mens lightweight eight at the World Championships and thought
> it interesting that the German crew won Gold in an Italian Filippi and the
> Italian men competed in a German Empacher!
>

> Several of the top U.S colleges have switched from Vespoli's to Empacher

> despite the change costing them up to 50% more and according to coaches the
> German shells being somewhat more fragile. Even Mike Vespoli was told by one

> of these colleges coaches that the Empachers were "Flying machines.".

>
> So, my question remains: Why?
>

> Could we be talking psychology as much as technology? Do people "think" they

> perform better because they have an Empacher? Or is it more a case of
> feeling you must have what the majority is using in order to feel
> competitive?
>

> I've heard it said when asking why Empacher that "No coach was ever fired
> for choosing Empacher.". Perhaps this very sentiment is quite telling.
>
> Anyway, I think you get what I'm really wanting to know here via my
> ramblings. it would be useful for those who've used several top shell

> manufacturers including Empacher to try and give me an objective - or at
> least a tangible subjective reason as to why Empacher dominates at the top
> level of the sport.
>

> Please enlighten me as it's a question I've pondered over for many years.
>
>
> --
>
> Regards
>
> Steve

A little while ago a certain Mr Pinsent and Cracknell borrowed the boat I was racing in to see if it made them go quicker as a pair. It did and they had a spray job done on a new bit of German Plastic and seemed much happier than been in their Aylings. The words they used to me was it let them put more power down without loosing stability.

Who know's !

For me they are a sensible choice on economics in terms of second hand value, stiffness of the shell, stability through the water and a hull design that has passed the test of time.

Christmas is a new shiny Empacher.

[Mike De Petris]

On Sunday, July 15, 2012 2:06:57 PM UTC+2, Newsgroups wrote:
> Please enlighten me as it's a question I've pondered over for many years.

When I was joung it was simply:
- yellow: costs too much
- white: unstable (maybe better for sculling short boats)

Now I see:
- my club in Trieste: Filippi only (cheaper)
- my club in Turin: Empacher only (PROVED more durable)

One more observation I've experienced and listened many times, is that the yellow boats give you less feeling about the boat, even if more stable.

That said, consider that whites and yellows are not all the same, different shapes, different sizes, different year of construction and so on. Anyway words spent about stability and durability seem to be a constant.

mike (I would really go for a CDRS single, if I could)

[Jim Dwyer]

Coaches at the national team level should test various makes of boats to see
which one is the fastest for their crew. This is easy to do now with
proper measurement equipment that can take into account all of the
environmental factors that would affect the speed of a crew. The results of
the testing should be presented to the crew to explain to them that they are
rowing the fastest equipment available to them.


Instead what many do is use the same type of boat as the competition so the
coach does not get blamed for picking the wrong type of boat when your crew
ends up losing the race.

Jim



"Newsgroups" wrote in message
news:ZsqdnYOTh4I3L5_N...@brightview.co.uk...

[Charles Carroll]

> ...what many do is use the same type of boat as the competition so the

> coach does not get blamed for picking the wrong type of boat when your
> crew ends up losing the race.

But Jim doesn't this beg the question? Exactly how does "the competition"
choose their shell?

[sully]

On Jul 16, 8:33 am, "Jim Dwyer" <jim.dw...@sympatico.ca> wrote:

snip

>
> I've heard it said when asking why Empacher that "No coach was ever fired
> for choosing Empacher.". Perhaps this very sentiment is quite telling.
>
> Anyway, I think you get what I'm really wanting to know here via my
> ramblings.  it would be useful for those who've used several top shell
> manufacturers including Empacher to try and give me an objective - or at
> least a tangible subjective reason as to why Empacher dominates at the top
> level of the sport.
>
> Please enlighten me as it's a question I've pondered over for many years.

I'm really not good at this stuff, I don't think I ever was. I've
always seen
most boats pretty much the same, and unless you are racing at a very
high level, one shell to another doesn't make a lot of difference.

W/O going into details, I had one elite sculler switch from Hudson
to Empacher and another elite sculler from Empacher to Hudson
over 8 years apart, for different reasons.

Both improved on the change.

[Charles Carroll]

> Both improved on the change.

Mike -

Freud used to say that confidence of success often produces success.

Put a crew into a new shell and make them confident that they will be
faster in the new shell and chances are they will be faster.

The lesson here is that confidence in oneself is more important than one's
choice of shells. It goes to prove the old adage: nothing is but thinking
makes it so.

I have lost count of the times people have asked me how can I scull Carl's
shell. I just tell them that Carl's shell is easy to scull. It is
surprisingly stable and it stays level. But I admit that even before I ever
set foot in my magic Carl Douglas I believed this. I was completely
confident that his shell would be very easy to scull ...

Cordially,

Charles

[Charles Carroll]

For the sake of honesty I have to add two points:

Compared to a 24 I have found that Carl’s shell is harder to scull when
wind and water is coming at me broadside on, and when I have to turn in
“…large wavelets, crests beginning to break, scattered whitecaps, some
swells”—i.e. Force 3 conditions on the Beaufort Scale.

On the other hand compared to a 24 I have found that Carl’s shell is easier
to scull in rollers. Like a 24 Carl’s shell will pierce a roller and its
bow will start to drop into it. But then, unlike the 24’s bow which keeps
burying itself deeper, the bow on Carl’s shell just lifts up and level.

I have had engineers tell me that if you want proof of how deeply Carl
understands “lift,” just analyze the bow of one of his shells.

[Jim Dwyer]

The manufacturer gives them a boat or pays them to use it. They make sure
that the fastest crews use you boat and you instantly are the best boat
builder that makes the fastest boats.

Jim


"Charles Carroll" wrote in message news:a6ivcu...@mid.individual.net...

[sully]

On Jul 16, 10:46 am, "Charles Carroll" <charles_carr...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> > Both improved on the change.
>
> Mike -
>
> Freud used to say that confidence of success often produces success.
>
> Put a crew into a new shell and make them confident that they will be
> faster in the new shell and chances are they will be faster.

true, but doesn't apply to me. Most of my convincing
consists of pointing out to scullers that newer equipment
or more expensive equipment won't make them faster.

In the two cases I cited, I had specific different issues
with each sculler that I addressed by swapping boats
and trying it out.

[ATP]

"Charles Carroll" <charles...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:a6j36f...@mid.individual.net...

> For the sake of honesty I have to add two points:
>
> Compared to a 24 I have found that Carl's shell is harder to scull when
> wind and water is coming at me broadside on, and when I have to turn in

> ".large wavelets, crests beginning to break, scattered whitecaps, some
> swells"-i.e. Force 3 conditions on the Beaufort Scale.

>
> On the other hand compared to a 24 I have found that Carl's shell is
> easier to scull in rollers. Like a 24 Carl's shell will pierce a roller
> and its bow will start to drop into it. But then, unlike the 24's bow
> which keeps burying itself deeper, the bow on Carl's shell just lifts up
> and level.
>
> I have had engineers tell me that if you want proof of how deeply Carl
> understands "lift," just analyze the bow of one of his shells.
>

Charles, are you referring to a Maas 24?

[ukr...@yahoo.com]

воскресенье, 15 июля 2012 г., 15:06:57 UTC+3 пользователь Newsgroups написал:

> Hello,
>
> This is likely to be a long read, so please forgive me in advance.
>
> I am aware that this topic has probably been visited many times over the
> years, but I have yet to find any definitive answers given in any of the
> previous incarnations of such a discussion. What I want is to get
> constructive and helpful responses and not the sort of responses that start
> with ...
>

> &quot;Well, because they are, so don&#39;t worry about it!&quot;
>
> Or
>

> &quot;A friend of mine said that ....&quot;
>
> Or those sorts of responses that you&#39;ll often find within forums that are

> unhelpful, ambiguous or plain rude.
>
> If possible, I am trying to find a general consensus as to why Empacher
> shells are so popular at the highest levels of competition. Sure, there are
> several other shell manufacturers that are also popular, but from an overall

> view it seems that Empacher still dominate and I&#39;m wanting to try and find

> out exactly why.
>
> Now, before some of you out there want to flame me for casting any doubts

> over the pedigree or quality of Empacher&#39;s, then please know that I am not

> in any way trying to say that Empacher does not deserve its place at the top
> of the sport. No, I simply want to be given tangible and objective reasons
> as to why.
>
> Some of you may already be thinking that the choice of boat you like - or
> you and your crew prefer with regards to boat manufacturer is often a highly
> personal and therefore subjective one. I understand this, but then my

> question is still valid; Why do so many choose Empacher&#39;s? Even if the

> reasons are personal taste, there are so many crews at the World
> Championships that make that choice - so please tell me why.
>
> What things make Empachers your first choice over other quality
> manufacturers?
>
> From a more objective viewpoint, I look at the specifications of one quality
> shell manufacturer over another and if the supposed absolutes of weight,
> stiffness, durability, rigging flexibility and price are concerned then
> there are many
> other choices that match or exceed those of Empacher in terms of one or more
> of the above attributes.
>
> For example, according to independent tests of stiffness, Vespoli make
> generally stiffer shells than Empacher. In addition, other manufacturers
> appear to have spent a lot of time and money refining hull designs where I

> can&#39;t find any such references by Empacher.
>
> So, let&#39;s take another shell attribute; weight. If we assume that most

> manufacturers build their boats to FISA minimum weights, then surely most
> boats are all on the same playing field in this respect?
>

> Let&#39;s ask the same question in a more illustrative way perhaps.
>
> Why can&#39;t a crew win at the highest level in a Janousek instead of an

> Empacher? If build stats are to be believed then a Janousek is the same
> weight, stiffness and uses proven hull designs (e.g VEB).?
>

> Please do not reply by saying that &quot;Janouseks are crap!&quot;. That sort of

> response is just not useful
>

> I&#39;ve noticed that Filippi shells are also popular choices at the highest
> levels, but boat selections often appear to be experiments or &quot;Let&#39;s see how
> this boat feels&quot; before in many cases (although not all of course) the crews

> in question revert back to Empacher.
>
> Perhaps boat choices are a little like fashion. You want to try something
> because you see others doing so. For example, back in the 2000 Olympics

> Vespoli had Gold, Silver and 5th places in the men&#39;s heavyweight final. Team

> GB used their Vespoli shell to achieve their Gold medal, but the following
> season have reverted back to Empacher. Back around 2006 I think, there were

> an explosion of Filippi&#39;s on the scene and I think that a substantial

> percentage of boats used in that years World Championships were Filippi.
> Subsequent years have seen many crews that used Filippi go back to using
> Empacher.
>

> It&#39;s not, of course, always a one-way street. A few years ago I recall the

> final of the mens lightweight eight at the World Championships and thought
> it interesting that the German crew won Gold in an Italian Filippi and the
> Italian men competed in a German Empacher!
>

> Several of the top U.S colleges have switched from Vespoli&#39;s to Empacher

> despite the change costing them up to 50% more and according to coaches the
> German shells being somewhat more fragile. Even Mike Vespoli was told by one

> of these colleges coaches that the Empachers were &quot;Flying machines.&quot;.

>
> So, my question remains: Why?
>

> Could we be talking psychology as much as technology? Do people &quot;think&quot; they

> perform better because they have an Empacher? Or is it more a case of
> feeling you must have what the majority is using in order to feel
> competitive?
>

> I&#39;ve heard it said when asking why Empacher that &quot;No coach was ever fired
> for choosing Empacher.&quot;. Perhaps this very sentiment is quite telling.
>
> Anyway, I think you get what I&#39;m really wanting to know here via my
> ramblings. it would be useful for those who&#39;ve used several top shell

> manufacturers including Empacher to try and give me an objective - or at
> least a tangible subjective reason as to why Empacher dominates at the top
> level of the sport.
>

> Please enlighten me as it&#39;s a question I&#39;ve pondered over for many years.
>
>
> --
>
> Regards
>
> Steve

Also sometimes national coaches are boat companies’ representatives, trade agents…
So, it explains their activity in the certain brand progress.
Example: the former Irish national coach Harald Jarling – Empacher’s distributor.

[Carl]

On 15/07/2012 13:06, Newsgroups wrote:
<snip>

Newsgroups asked for:

> a tangible subjective reason as to why Empacher dominates at the top
> level of the sport.
> Please enlighten me as it's a question I've pondered over for many years.
>
>

Until the '76 Montreal games boats came from everywhere to world champs
and Olympic events. Generally crews from countries with indigenous
racing shell builders trained & raced in the products of their own
manufacturers.

That year, AIUI (& I'm open to expert correction), Empacher made an
agreement with FISA to provide a hire fleet for future international
events. The boycotts in '80 & then in '84 were said to have hit them
quite hard, but since then they have seen the wisdom of the arrangement.

Funnily enough, in '85 FISA became fixated on the matter of costs &
drove forward measures that would have had everyone race in what they
called "Standard Boats" - of uniform design & uniformly cheap
construction - which would form a FISA fleet to be trucked from venue to
venue. Ever competitor would have been obliged to use them. There was
great disquiet about this amongst the World's boat-builders, & I
organised the opposition which pointed out to FISA the unwisdom of such
a measure.

FISA's cost-saving argument was without merit - the big costs of
competing internationally are not in the equipment. And no established
builders wanted rowing to take the slippery slope to uniform boats - of
uniformly inferior quality, as seen in Olympic sailing classes. In the
end FISA, to its credit, agreed to drop its standard boat project.

What happened instead is that much of the international hire fleet is
now supplied by the builder of the most expensive boats. They are seen
as "the boats to use" because rowing administrators, being very
political, play safe. And they don't much understand boats or water.
So, rather than experiment to determine the actual fastest boats for
each crew, & rather than work with their indigenous boat builders to
produce even faster boats, they opt for what they see most of.

I've always advocated that squads, crews & individuals should properly
evaluate boats' & accessories' real performance before deciding which to
use or buy. But most squads have minimal technical grasp of shell
design principles and fear the dark science of hydrodynamics. Nor do
they wish to upset long relationships with the major vendors. Finally,
if their crews under-perform there are plenty of office politicians
ready to shred them for "losing races by using the wrong equipment".

That brought us the GBR team photo: Windsor Castle behind, a very yellow
boat in front.

As a Brit I'm wearily accustomed to technically illiterate know-alls &
politicians talking down everything made by their fellow citizens &
spending our hard-earned dough on stuff we can make at least as well as
what they prefer to import. But they wouldn't dream of talking to us,
nor of learning from us. Just like those US congressmen & women who
were so mightily unimpressed to learn where the US Olympic team kit had
been made, I'm appalled by such arrogant short-sightedness. It's of the
same kind which gave us the banking collapse, the shrivelling of UK
manufacturing industry & a string of other obscenities.

Still, it's an interesting day to be discussing how officialdom shoot
their own folk in the back! Today we see the unfolding collapse of a
best-mate commercial deal, done in past years by such people, to
"deliver" (how one hates that abused, devalued word!) Olympic security.
Our military, coming back from Afghanistan to be sacked, have just had
their hard-earned leave cancelled so they can provide a month's event
security & cover the scaly backs of government ministers & Locog
panjandrums who were too smug, rich, idle & inept to keep any proper eye
on the conduct of the very same private security outfit to which they
are currently farming out chunks of our national policing. You couldn't
make it up! But it could yet get worse.

Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Find: tinyurl.com/2tqujf
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
URLs: carldouglas.co.uk & now on Facebook @ CarlDouglasRacingShells

[Charles Carroll]

> Charles, are you referring to a Maas 24?

Mike - It was a Maas 24. It was my first shell. I loved it.

Of course it also goes without saying that I really love my Carl Douglas.
But I don't think you can compare the two. They are different boats built
for different purposes.

Over the years I have become convinced that Carl Douglas racing shells are
in a league by themselves -- leastwise I know of nothing like them. A few
months ago I had the chance to study the hull geometry of my Carl Douglas
along side an Empacher. When finished I was left wondering whether even
these two boats are comparable -- their hull geometry is so very different.
But this is something you need to see for yourself ...

Cordially,

Charles

[ATP]

"Charles Carroll" <charles...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:a6mah9...@mid.individual.net...

I am quite isolated here. I have to get involved in a local rowing club.
Since I picked up my Maas 24 about four years ago on the Charles River I
have not seen another shell. Also, although I like the simplicity of walking
the shell down from my house to the bay, with no dock to enter the shell I'm
starting out with wet feet which is not optimal.

[sully]

On Jul 17, 7:28 pm, "ATP" <walter_mun...@unforgiven.com> wrote:
> "Charles Carroll" <charles_carr...@comcast.net> wrote in message

I like beach launching. It's a wake up call
by the body of water you might soon be immersed.

[magnus....@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 12:24:25 AM UTC+1, Charles Carroll wrote:
> &gt; Charles, are you referring to a Maas 24?
...

> Over the years I have become convinced that Carl Douglas racing shells are

> in a league by themselves ...

Even Empacher agreed with that! A number of years ago I and my sculling partner, having demonstrated that we were reasonably fast in a (Janousek) 2x, bought and went to collect a new Empacher double. When we arrived in Germany to collect it, the head man at that time said that he couldn't understand why we were buying Empacher, when the maker of the best racing shells in the world was just down the road in Staines!

I have since corrected my ways, and now own a CD 2x and 1x.

[Chris A]

On Sunday, July 15, 2012 1:06:57 PM UTC+1, Newsgroups wrote:

> Hello,
>
> This is likely to be a long read, so please forgive me in advance.
>
> I am aware that this topic has probably been visited many times over the
> years, but I have yet to find any definitive answers given in any of the
> previous incarnations of such a discussion. What I want is to get
> constructive and helpful responses and not the sort of responses that start
> with ...
>

> &quot;Well, because they are, so don&#39;t worry about it!&quot;
>
> Or
>

> &quot;A friend of mine said that ....&quot;
>
> Or those sorts of responses that you&#39;ll often find within forums that are

> unhelpful, ambiguous or plain rude.
>
> If possible, I am trying to find a general consensus as to why Empacher
> shells are so popular at the highest levels of competition. Sure, there are
> several other shell manufacturers that are also popular, but from an overall

> view it seems that Empacher still dominate and I&#39;m wanting to try and find
> out exactly why.
>
>

Not in the least bit popular if you're a lightweight, particularly women

[saraha...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 3:21:45 PM UTC+1, (unknown) wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 12:24:25 AM UTC+1, Charles Carroll wrote:

> &gt; &amp;gt; Charles, are you referring to a Maas 24?
> ...
> &gt; Over the years I have become convinced that Carl Douglas racing shells are
> &gt; in a league by themselves ...
>
> Even Empacher agreed with that! A number of years ago I and my sculling partner, having demonstrated that we were reasonably fast in a (Janousek) 2x, bought and went to collect a new Empacher double. When we arrived in Germany to collect it, the head man at that time said that he couldn&#39;t understand why we were buying Empacher, when the maker of the best racing shells in the world was just down the road in Staines!

>
> I have since corrected my ways, and now own a CD 2x and 1x.

I was only saying last night (while we were watching town bumps) that if I ever manage to fulfil my ambition of becoming a philanthopist, then I might have to invest in a 65kg 2x so we can have a bit of a laugh doing mixed lightweight doubles...

Sarah

[Newsgroups]

Hello Charles,

As this is relevant to what I'm trying to ascertain; given that you have
used :

1. Janousek 2x
2. Empacher 2x
3. CD 2x

How would you characterise each boat compared with another?

Please elaborate as much as you can on this as I would really like to hear
your opinions.
Thank you.

--

Regards

Steve
<magnus....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b491b604-8951-4edf...@googlegroups.com...

[ATP]

"Newsgroups" <sm.alt...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:5KKdncj0LJQQrJTN...@brightview.co.uk...

> Hello Charles,
>
> As this is relevant to what I'm trying to ascertain; given that you have
> used :
>
> 1. Janousek 2x
> 2. Empacher 2x
> 3. CD 2x
>
> How would you characterise each boat compared with another?
>
> Please elaborate as much as you can on this as I would really like to hear
> your opinions.
> Thank you.
>
> --
>
> Regards
>
> Steve

Magnus Burbanks wrote that part of the post, not Charles.

[tcyr...@gmail.com]

I have been part of a start up youth program in the States. We can only afford used equipment - all Vespoli. Here, like Empacher in Europe, their shells are everywhere. I can get parts, rent a similar shell and find one for sale more readily than anything else. I have also found them to be durable and raceworthy for a long time - some of our race boats are 18 years old), better than Hudson and a number of others.

If one looks at Empachers and talks to those who row them, it seems clear that the boats are very well made and easy to row. Talk to a crew or sculler and they'll often tell you how good it felt the first time out. That's because they're barges compared to some others. Unlike a V1, which you are perched upon, you sit down in an Empacher 8. Many of their designs are wide, have a hard chine and flat bottom. The center of gravity appears lower than many other boats. This "rowability" creates what George Pocock, who built massively successful flat-bottomed cedar shells, called a "platform for pulling". Simply put, the rowers in an Empacher can spend more time pulling and less time worrying about keeping the boat set. The Hypercarbon Pococks no longer have a flat bottom, but are set up well ergonomically. People like them in an instant.

Interestingly, I spoke with both the Hudson folks and Vespoli folks after their Brit and US Olympic wins. Neither got much sales increase from their triumphs. Both soon changed their hull shapes to make them more "rowable" and in Hudson’s case, so they could reach a broader market - the US collegiate market. The Vespoli V1 continued their winning collegiate ways until recently and the Hud Shark is now one of the more popular eights on the US college scene.
JD

[Charles Carroll]

Hello Steve,

As Mike said, these are questions for Magnus ... I hope he has time to
answer.

The only 2x I have ever sculled was a Maas. Otherwise I have only been in
1xs, and even then, my experience is limited. I have sculled Maas Areos and
24s, a hudson, a Filipp, and of course my Carl Douglas.

Good luck,

Charles

[Steve]

Hello,

Interesting.

It's funny that a lot of people say that Empachers are durable and yet two
coaches (one a national coach over here in the UK) have said that they are
somewhat more fragile? The national coach told me back in the early 80's
that Empachers were good racing shells, but that they didn't retain their
rigidity and as such didn't make good club boats which need to last for
years. OK, this was some 30 years ago and I guess that Empachers have
changed over that time, but it is interesting to get such opposing
perspectives.

I agree with you on the greater comfort factor. I had the great luck when I
was very much younger than I am now to row in an Empacher eight. It was a
scratch crew and there was only one other guy I had rowed with before in the
boat. We were all competent oarsmen, but despite being thrown together for
the first time and using a boat not specifically rigged for us the outing
went very well. We had no balance issues at all, so this does make me think
about the lower centre of gravity you mentioned or a more stable hull shape
as a possible reason why.

WHile on the subject of the merits of various boats; How may I ask would you
compare or tate Pocock against Vespoli. Both manufacturers websites offer
impressive blurb about their shells and i was esepcially impressed with the
honesty of Pocock's construction information.

--

Regards

Steve
<tcyr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2b2ddf64-96f5-4537...@googlegroups.com...

[johnf...@gmail.com]

"If possible, I am trying to find a general consensus as to why Empacher
shells are so popular at the highest levels of competition. Sure, there are
several other shell manufacturers that are also popular, but from an overall
view it seems that Empacher still dominate and I'm wanting to try and find
out exactly why.

Now, before some of you out there want to flame me for casting any doubts
over the pedigree or quality of Empacher's, then please know that I am not
in any way trying to say that Empacher does not deserve its place at the top
of the sport. No, I simply want to be given tangible and objective reasons
as to why.

Some of you may already be thinking that the choice of boat you like - or
you and your crew prefer with regards to boat manufacturer is often a highly
personal and therefore subjective one. I understand this, but then my
question is still valid; Why do so many choose Empacher's? Even if the
reasons are personal taste, there are so many crews at the World
Championships that make that choice - so please tell me why."

Support. I believe that Empacher and Filippi are the only manufacturers who will lease you a boat AND transport it to Olympics/World Championships and World Cups. And provide technical support while you are there.

If you train in an Empacher or Filippi at home, you can have an identical boat waiting for you when you arrive at a major event. This is particularly important if you're a LW because you have to keep working out to avoid gaining weight. But even if not a LW, the boat will be familiar and it will be simpler to duplicate the rigging you were using at home.

If you row something else, you will need at least two: one to train in at home while the other is being shipped to the regatta. The hassle and cost of shipping, not to mention delays (container or air [must be transshipped from airport to course]). The risk that the boat will be damaged during shipment.

BTW, Gevvie Stone, the US W1X, rows a Van Dusen. AFAIK she doesn't ship her hull, she just brings her wing rigger/shoe assembly and mounts it in a Van Dusen that a friend keeps in the UK.

Since Empacher leases so widely, their boats tend to be stable (because the skill level of some of their customers may be poor), durable, and accurately made (in my experience). Ditto for Filippi, except that Filippi offers more choices of hull shape, so they may accommodate a wider range of skill level. And my experience has been that their support has been outstanding.

These factors predominate because it is extremely difficult to quantitatively prove that one shell shape is faster than another, at least among the top shell designs. Wind speed and direction, wave conditions, rower weight in relation to the hull specification, rower height and leg/torso/arm lengths, power (how efficient is the shape at the speed the boat will be going), and rower technique. If one design were demonstrably 0.1 second faster over 2k under all conditions then everybody would want it.

I rowed an Empacher K-18 for a number of years and certainly didn't feel that it was slow. Now I have a van Dusen. It's definitely less stable in both axes than the Empacher, noticeable when I go back to the Empacher. It feels faster to me, and that's what matters (to me!).

[Tinus]

There are yellow boats and there are other boats. What other
boat-builder does that well in marketing?

[magnus....@gmail.com]

On Friday, July 20, 2012 10:49:18 AM UTC+1, Steve wrote:
> Hello Charles,
>

> As this is relevant to what I&#39;m trying to ascertain; given that you have

> used :
>
> 1. Janousek 2x
> 2. Empacher 2x
> 3. CD 2x
>
> How would you characterise each boat compared with another?
>
> Please elaborate as much as you can on this as I would really like to hear
> your opinions.
> Thank you.

Yes indeed it was me who has raced Janousek, Empacher (1990s) and Carl Douglas (2004+). First the background:
The Jano was perhaps already 5 years old when we used it. We used the Jano for one season, won our National Champs in it in record time (and should have won the Double Sculls at Henley Royal in it too, but that’s another story).
On the strength of our showing that season, I persuaded the company I worked for and my club to share the cost and buy us a brand new “state-of-the-art” boat. Which we decided then was to be an Empacher. We raced in the Empacher for two years before my partner’s first retirement, won many races and successfully defended our national title twice. However, I couldn’t say that the Empacher was faster than the Janousek, and if there was an intrinsic difference in “speed” it was far too small to be detected above the noise of everything else that affects one’s speed on any given day.
A few years later, we got back together as a double and jumped into the same Empacher for a winter season, having ordered a new Carl Douglas, which was delivered just in time for the summer. The main difference in feeling between the CD and the Empacher was that the CD was more difficult to balance than the Empacher. (Indeed the Jano was more difficult to balance than the Empacher too. This may be explained by the fact that the Empacher had a much larger fin than the other two.

The noticeable differences between the boats were

1. Structural. The Jano was quite soft laterally and significantly heavier than the other two. I didn’t perform any experiments on it, but it didn’t take much force to be able waggle the riggers up and down, whereas the Empacher and the CD were far more rigid. The Jano’s shoulders had multiple cracks, but I put that down to a few years of club (ab)use before we got hold of it.
2. Engineering and tolerances. My standard test is to lay a spirit level across the sax-boards at various places up and down the boat, and compare the angles to those of a spirit level across the slides. Neither the Jano nor the Empacher produced consistent results, and the errors were of the order of full degrees rather than tenths. This means that, for the Jano and Empacher, trying to set up lateral pitches or measure gate-heights presented a real challenge. The CD was spot on, allowing for easy and confident setting up.
3. Fittings, especially the riggers. Both the Jano’s and the Empacher’s were horrible. They were badly engineered so that they were unlikely to be where you wanted them even when new. With either of these boats, if you wanted to change the angle of the pin either fore/aft or laterally, you needed to seriously bend aluminium. You can only really do that if the riggers are firmly attached to something to resist the bending force, and the only thing available is the boat itself. A more appallingly stupid piece of design I have never seen, and it’s still the norm for many if not most boats today. Our club has a large piece of scaffolding pipe for this job!
Whereas the CD has highly-quality-engineered riggers, and a pin design that allows for fingertip and independent adjustment of pin angles in the two vertical planes.

Further thoughts

We have gone as fast as we expected to in all 3 of these boats, meaning that whatever the boats’ shortcomings or differences, somehow as a crew we were able to adapt.
The Jano, new in perhaps 1989, is now a wreck and not used. The Empacher, new in 1991, is still regularly used and still a perfectly good boat, if a little colour-faded and worn at the edges. The CD was new in 2004, so perhaps an unfair comparison and has just featured in a photo-shoot. I expect it to remain as good as new, like most other CDs I’ve seen, including my own 1x, for as many years as it’s looked after.

Cheers

Magnus

[Henry Law]

On 24/07/12 15:14, magnus....@gmail.com wrote:

> Yes indeed it was me who has raced Janousek, Empacher (1990s) and Carl Douglas (2004+).

What an interesting reply, and almost as good reading as a Potts-o-Gram
(TM).

--

Henry Law Manchester, England

[Charles Carroll]

Magnus,

How I missed your post I just don't know. But I could not agree with Henry
more. It is among the most interesting posts that I have read on RSR.

Thank you for taking the time to write and post. I am in your debt,

Charles

[johnf...@gmail.com]

> 2. Engineering and tolerances. My standard test is to lay a spirit level across the sax-boards at various places up and down the boat, and compare the angles to those of a spirit level across the slides. Neither the Jano nor the Empacher produced consistent results, and the errors were of the order of full degrees rather than tenths. This means that, for the Jano and Empacher, trying to set up lateral pitches or measure gate-heights presented a real challenge. The CD was spot on, allowing for easy and confident setting up.
>

Both Empacher and Filippi make jigs that measure gate heights based on the tracks (minus seat height of course). Pricey but way more convenient than laying a level across the gunnels. To me it's more important that the seat deck is level with respect to the hull (not sure how one would measure that) than how accurately the gunnels were trimmed. And it's best to measure directly to the seat deck rather than use the gunnels as a substitute.

There are also bubble jigs (not sure who makes them) that clamp to both ends of the pin to measure inboard and stern pitch.

> 3. Fittings, especially the riggers. Both the Jano’s and the Empacher’s were horrible. They were badly engineered so that they were unlikely to be where you wanted them even when new. With either of these boats, if you wanted to change the angle of the pin either fore/aft or laterally, you needed to seriously bend aluminium. You can only really do that if the riggers are firmly attached to something to resist the bending force, and the only thing available is the boat itself. A more appallingly stupid piece of design I have never seen, and it’s still the norm for many if not most boats today. Our club has a large piece of scaffolding pipe for this job!

No need to resort to these gorilla tactics. With conventional riggers, you can shim between the hull and the mounting brackets to adjust lateral pitch. And use the C2 cones (or washers ground to a wedge shape under the tops of the pins) to adjust stern pitch. Or for a truly elegant solution simply install CD pins to handle both adjustments!

And boats today use many many different setups at the ends of the riggers:
- 2-stay carbon riggers typically have a C-cup arrangement holding the pin which swivels in both axes (and is a pain to adjust IMHO)
- some bow wing riggers (Filippi and perhaps Empacher?) use a similar cup arrangement
- Fluidesign has vertical (hopefully) stubs of tubing at the ends of the wing to which slotted C-cups which rotate (spread) and slide up and down (height)
- recent Filippi wing riggers have a ball on the lower end of the pin which clamps into a fixture at the end of the wing, tilting in both axes for adjustment)
- Van Dusen uses spacers between the wing and its mounts to tilt the wing for left-over-right and then zeroes out the tilt with precisely bent metal plates that bolt into the ends of the carbon wing rigger, the pins then bolting into holes in the plates

Even back in the 1990-ish period referred to there were different methods. We have a 1989 Vespoli 1x that has conventional riggers wit horizontal stubs of tubing at their ends. Carriers that hold the pins clamp to these tubes, and slide in and out for spread and rotate for stern pitch. Lateral pitch is handled by shims between the riggers and the hull.

But I thought the OP was comparing today's boats, not boats from roughly 20 years ago?? Things HAVE changed, at least in some areas.

[johnf...@gmail.com]

> And use the C2 cones (or washers ground to a wedge shape under the tops of the pins) to adjust >stern pitch. Or for a truly elegant solution simply install CD pins to handle both adjustments!

Sorry, I meant to say: "washers ground to a wedge shape and placed between the top surface of the rigger and the pin where it goes into the top of the rigger."

[seanhe...@gmail.com]

If i could add my tuppence worth
as someone who has just bought a 2nd hand empacher 2- and have owned a k13 single for a few years fron 2nd hand
the build quality ie excelent just look at a 10 year old empacher compared to any other boat
they are stiff and tight and very twitchy boats which makes me believe the energy you put in is not wasted on creaks or bending of parts
when you are on the start line there is no question does the guy beside you have a better boat as you know you have the best
also the service department at empacher were, and are very helpful when you need any little thing not just big things and that makes me a smile and ask any lightweight whats the best boat to train in for a rough winter

[gsl...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, July 22, 2012 12:16:57 PM UTC-7, johnf...@gmail.com wrote:

> Support. I believe that Empacher and Filippi are the only manufacturers who will lease you a boat AND transport it to Olympics/World Championships and World Cups. And provide technical support while you are there.
>
> If you train in an Empacher or Filippi at home, you can have an identical boat waiting for you when you arrive at a major event. This is particularly important if you're a LW because you have to keep working out to avoid gaining weight. But even if not a LW, the boat will be familiar and it will be simpler to duplicate the rigging you were using at home.
>
> If you row something else, you will need at least two: one to train in at home while the other is being shipped to the regatta. The hassle and cost of shipping, not to mention delays (container or air [must be transshipped from airport to course]). The risk that the boat will be damaged during shipment.
>
> BTW, Gevvie Stone, the US W1X, rows a Van Dusen. AFAIK she doesn't ship her hull, she just brings her wing rigger/shoe assembly and mounts it in a Van Dusen that a friend keeps in the UK.
>
> Since Empacher leases so widely, their boats tend to be stable (because the skill level of some of their customers may be poor), durable, and accurately made (in my experience). Ditto for Filippi, except that Filippi offers more choices of hull shape, so they may accommodate a wider range of skill level. And my experience has been that their support has been outstanding.
>
> These factors predominate because it is extremely difficult to quantitatively prove that one shell shape is faster than another, at least among the top shell designs. Wind speed and direction, wave conditions, rower weight in relation to the hull specification, rower height and leg/torso/arm lengths, power (how efficient is the shape at the speed the boat will be going), and rower technique. If one design were demonstrably 0.1 second faster over 2k under all conditions then everybody would want it.
>
> I rowed an Empacher K-18 for a number of years and certainly didn't feel that it was slow. Now I have a van Dusen. It's definitely less stable in both axes than the Empacher, noticeable when I go back to the Empacher. It feels faster to me, and that's what matters (to me!).

I've heard the same reasoning from a number of other people, and frankly it makes the most sense to me.

There is often criticism of coaches and crews not determining which boats are fastest, however if you are a coach you have to ask yourself is it worth it? How much time and effort would you have to go through to figure it out? And if you get results would they be the same with next years crew or in different conditions. Would the time spent on something else produced a larger speed increase than doing all the testing?

[2potsin...@gmail.com]

An old say goes, there are no fast chariots, only fast horses. I find it hard to believe that it is highly likely that any second place boat might have been first if only their boat was yellow, or that any first place boat was so solely because their boat was yellow. That is not to say that yellow boats are bad, indeed they are very good boats. Just that I'm not convinced they are the only good boats available.

dw

[Carl]

On 08/08/2013 20:22, gsl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, July 22, 2012 12:16:57 PM UTC-7, johnf...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

>
> I've heard the same reasoning from a number of other people, and frankly it makes the most sense to me.
>
> There is often criticism of coaches and crews not determining which boats are fastest, however if you are a coach you have to ask yourself is it worth it? How much time and effort would you have to go through to figure it out? And if you get results would they be the same with next years crew or in different conditions. Would the time spent on something else produced a larger speed increase than doing all the testing?
>

It boggles my mind that any coach or crew seriously keen to win would
take so slack a view of the value & feasibility of testing the equipment
they use. Yet I know that this is exactly what does happen, across the
board.

Thus we get follow-my-leader fashions in equipment selection, once
neatly summed up in the stock excuse of IT managers (long ago) that
"you'll never get sacked for choosing IBM". The world abounds with
armchair pundits who pretend to be expert but probably couldn't coach
(or row) their way out of a paper bag. Despite their ignorance, their
stridency puts a lot of pressure on those doing the real work. As a
result, the logic of equipment selection is badly skewed by the demands
of job preservation: if you win in boat B (or, e.g., with an unfavoured
oar type) you'll be told you'd have won better in boat A; if you lose in
the less favoured boat that will be coach's fault for choosing the
"wrong" boat; if you loose in boat A, then "at least you chose the right
kit"!

Coaches do make a big deal out of seat racing, so clearly they see the
need for evaluating, or being at least seen to be trying to evaluate,
their crew material, if not always the many flaws in this method of
assessment. So why will they _not_ test equipment?

Seat racing is wide open to abuse & misuse, since you have to deal with
human foibles including personal antipathies. It's the "herding of
cats" problem writ large. Boat testing is far less subjective & can be
rather objective - if properly conducted.

Into this equation add that element of fear that boat tests might come
up with the "wrong result" - in short, that you or your predecessor
lumbered the club or yourself last year with the slower boat. So again
we face the blame game. And there's a floppy unwillingness, since
relatively few rowers & coaches are of a scientific bent, to design &
conduct meaningful tests, due in part to an irrational disbelief that
testing can/will prove anything. So best stick with the colour you like
best.

As to which boat is "fastest" - look back to see the different boats in
which the same guy has won in different years. Then see how the herd
followed that most recent choice.

However, winning is about engaging not just the muscles but also the
brain. I observe a wide reluctance within rowing to evaluate any kind
of equipment that differs from conventional, & a strong preference to
buy that which is most strongly promoted rather than to educate oneself
in some of the somewhat more knotty technical aspects of how boats,
fittings & oars interact with wind & water. I find always that I can
more easily agree with flyers & sailors on the fluid dynamic principles
& influences of rowing equipment design & rowing technique on
performance than with any but a tiny minority of rowers & coaches. And
those of similar mind to my own in rowing are those with detailed
knowledge of those other sports &/or of fluid dynamics.

Part of the problem is that rowers & coaches, as I've indicated, are not
generally science or engineering graduates. Nor, too often, are their
suppliers. So rowing operates in an environment in which equipment
choices are determined by the social influences of marketeers &, of
course, on what so-&-so used this year.

We could do much better.

Cheers -

[thomas....@googlemail.com]

I think you may be right that in the selction of club boats there is an element of not wanting to take a risk and take the blame, but I also wonder if its also because for a club looking to buy a boat there isnt really an "easy" way to test different boats. AFAIK no company has stocks of demo 4's and 8's for people to test, nor do I suspect many would willingly buy into direct testing.

Also, to make it fair, im not sure how many clubs would have the access to still water conditons or nough funds to pay for telemetry (which I think would be most useful for comparing boats), meaning that even for someone who is keen to test boats it would be extremely difficult to organise a test, hence why most clubs end up just going with "what everyone else has got" or "what the squad has got" with regards to equipment


For NATIONAL squads however I would agree that it is pretty bad that they dont investigate equipment more, I would suspect boat manufacturers would fall over each other to get involved in testing to be able to supply a national squad like GB, and they would have the funds and facilities to do the testing, the information from which would then filter down to the club/amateur athletes. Kind of how it does for the cycling world, where the amateurs understanding of equipment cetrainly massively benefits from the GB squads willingness to try and test each and every possible advtange they can get in technology

[Carl]

On 09/08/2013 15:30, thomas....@googlemail.com wrote:
> I think you may be right that in the selction of club boats there is an element of not wanting to take a risk and take the blame, but I also wonder if its also because for a club looking to buy a boat there isnt really an "easy" way to test different boats. AFAIK no company has stocks of demo 4's and 8's for people to test, nor do I suspect many would willingly buy into direct testing.
>

We always invite would-be clients to try and test boats. These are
major capital expenditures for any individual or club, and it seems
strange to spend that much without prior evaluation

> Also, to make it fair, im not sure how many clubs would have the access to still water conditons or nough funds to pay for telemetry (which I think would be most useful for comparing boats), meaning that even for someone who is keen to test boats it would be extremely difficult to organise a test, hence why most clubs end up just going with "what everyone else has got" or "what the squad has got" with regards to equipment
>

The cost of performance measurement is trivial compared with the price
of a boat. I'm not sure how requisite telemetry would be - don't we too
often quote the cost of the technologically most complex solution to
excuse ourselves for ducking the challenge?

Any club which spends on training camps could spend a small fraction of
that cost on still-water testing (which would still be a kind of
training camp).

>
> For NATIONAL squads however I would agree that it is pretty bad that they dont investigate equipment more, I would suspect boat manufacturers would fall over each other to get involved in testing to be able to supply a national squad like GB, and they would have the funds and facilities to do the testing, the information from which would then filter down to the club/amateur athletes. Kind of how it does for the cycling world, where the amateurs understanding of equipment cetrainly massively benefits from the GB squads willingness to try and test each and every possible advtange they can get in technology
>

I can only say "Amen" to that.

The investment of money and effort in getting crews together & fitter,
in equipping them, & in their distraction from more financially gainful
activities is all spent on winning or losing by often rather small
margins. Yet failures to properly evaluate & understand the technology
& the equipment are all too often shrugged off with irrelevant excuses,
ranging from:
1. all boats are the same anyway
2. we are happy with supplier X or Y (I sometimes wonder what that
really means)
3. we wouldn't want to go out on a limb
4. all our other equipment comes from these same manufacturers

Can you imagine F1, say, being run that way? Can you name any
heavily-invested sport other than rowing in which the physical
functioning of the equipment is so poorly understood?

[thomas....@googlemail.com]

I think all manufacturers would let you yes a single, maybe even a double, but as I said I don't think many would have a 4 or 8 available to test, certainly not one outside the country of manufacture anyway, which was the point I was making in that clubs wanting to test a 4 or 8 would have to ask other clubs if they could try their out or decide using other means.

As to the cost, I proposed the use of telemetry in order to make the test as fair as possible as you would really want to know that the test was "fair", I.e. that the rowers put the same effort into rowing both boats so you could really see a differeence, otherwise you could miss if the crew tired between tests or you run the risk of going from subjective results like "well it felt faster", you could just run the test using a stopwatch but it leaves a couple of variables open

[Carl]

On 10/08/2013 08:06, thomas....@googlemail.com wrote:
> I think all manufacturers would let you yes a single, maybe even a double, but as I said I don't think many would have a 4 or 8 available to test, certainly not one outside the country of manufacture anyway, which was the point I was making in that clubs wanting to test a 4 or 8 would have to ask other clubs if they could try their out or decide using other means.
>
> As to the cost, I proposed the use of telemetry in order to make the test as fair as possible as you would really want to know that the test was "fair", I.e. that the rowers put the same effort into rowing both boats so you could really see a differeence, otherwise you could miss if the crew tired between tests or you run the risk of going from subjective results like "well it felt faster", you could just run the test using a stopwatch but it leaves a couple of variables open
>

I don't think it's as hard as you seem to believe, and I do think
manufacturers should want to help you to evaluate a shell, including
crew shells, just as you'd test-drive a car.

Of course, it may be safer to keep the customer in the dark & cover them
with bullshit - the mushroom treatment - but I don't see that as a great
way to go.

Let's consider testing protocols, working on the logical basis that if a
boat goes fast over 500m it _is_ a fast boat (if anyone doubts this, by
all means let's discuss). And let's accept that you row shells when
seriously fatigued (towards the end of a race), so fatigue should not be
an issue.

What fatigue does do is to reduce subjectivity. If you are really tired
you generally (IME) will pay less attention to prejudices. And if you
still have someone in your crew who really wants to wreck the process,
then you'll have to observe and use your own mental faculties to spot
the idiot.

The protocol I'd favour would be to visit a stretch of water which has
clear start & finish markers, a steady or zero stream. Get the 2 boats
being compared comfortably & equivalently rigged & spend an hour or so
in each boat, doing serious training, in the morning. If you can use 2
crews, it becomes easier.

In the afternoon, send out the crew(s) just as for a race. Have them go
full pressure over the 500m measured stretch at a pre-set rate & record
time & rating. Swap boats with minimum changeover time & repeat the
process. Do this 6 to 10 x for each boat, preferably more. Don't tell
anyone the times & allow no one in the crew(s) to clock the them.

What you should see at the end of this session is that the 500m times
for each boat, plotted against the time of day of each test run, follow
smooth curves. These may reduce at first & then, as fatigue sets in,
start to climb. But you should also find that these curves are not
coincident - one will lie above the other, especially as fatigue creeps
in. Then, unless you have good cause to doubt the validity of your
results, you're in a better position to say which boat is faster under
the test conditions.

(The 2 crew method gives you 2 sets of curves, a pair for each crew, &
tells you about the fighting qualities of the crews)

Note: you're not too worried about stream in the single-crew tests but
ought to keep the same stations for each crew if you're racing
side-by-side, to eliminate the chance of lane changes influencing the data.

It should be a real training gain, & tell you a bundle about the 2
boats. And if you are using 2 crews, you have a further test on
integrity - if boat A does better with crew X & boat B does better with
Crew Y, you should not put this down to how this boat prefers that type
of technique but instead look for human bias. If you've filmed the
crews, that should be easily enough detected - especially if you had a
GoPro camera on a stick on the stern of each boat.

[georgeh...@gmail.com]

In my opinion empacher is a lot faster , as my junior eight switched from a Hudson to an empacher and we got 35 seconds faster over a 5 k course

[Henry Law]

On 14/06/14 17:33, georgeh...@gmail.com wrote:
> In my opinion empacher is a lot faster , as my junior eight switched from a Hudson to an empacher and we got 35 seconds faster over a 5 k course
>

Do you have more than one measurement? Across those measurements have
you kept the crew, the weather and the circumstances constant, and
controlled for other external factors?

I'm not saying you're wrong, just questioning the data underlying your
absolute certainty.

[Phil]

On Saturday, June 14, 2014 5:33:32 PM UTC+1, georgeh...@gmail.com wrote:
> In my opinion empacher is a lot faster , as my junior eight switched from a Hudson to an empacher and we got 35 seconds faster over a 5 k course

That'll be down to the yellow paint.

[John Greenly]

Since this topic has been reopened, I'd be interested to know if anyone (including Carl!) has actually used the protocol that Carl outlined for testing boats (his original quoted below). It seems to me to be an excellent method that could really give good data on the perennial question of boat speed. The obvious caveats would be: (1) results would not necessarily generalize to different water conditions than tested, (2) maybe some crews would go faster in a boat that was, for instance, more stable even if inherently slower. So, the results might be both water- and crew-specific to some extent, but, as Carl says, you would at least be able "to say which boat is faster under the test conditions."

Cheers,
John G

[Henry Law]

On 14/06/14 20:38, John Greenly wrote:
> It seems to me to be an excellent method that could really give good data on the perennial question of boat speed

John, as you might expect I completely agree with you, but only in
theory. In practice nobody is going to collect good data because (a)
it's hard, and anyway (b) they know what they think and collecting data
isn't necessary to prove it.

My attitude to this debate is similar to my attitude to debates in
technical groups about the best programming language, or the best editor
(or about whether or not Evolution is "just a theory"), and is best
summed up thus:

http://www.lawshouse.org/download/Will-to-live-meter.gif

[Charles Carroll]

> they know what they think and collecting data
> isn't necessary to prove it.

Henry,

Over here we call that "living in a data free zone."

Cordially,

Charles

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[Carl]

On 15/06/2014 02:16, Charles Carroll wrote:
>> they know what they think and collecting data isn't necessary to prove
>> it.
>
> Henry,
>
> Over here we call that "living in a data free zone."
>
> Cordially,
>
> Charles
>

I'm always intrigued when an ageing thread is resuscitated in this way :)

To address George's claim:
If Boat A really had 7sec/1000m over Boat B, then Boat B would typically
lose 2k races by over 5 lengths. In fact, it would be unlikely to win
or be chosen by intelligent clubs and coaches.

How many races are lost or won by that margin (which if true would
suggest that boat B would be dissipating around 5% more energy when
moving at the same speed as Boat ? There being no obvious evidence for
that kind of a disparity between those makes, I think the claim a little
implausible.

In answer to John Greenly's question:
Yes, I have employed that test protocol, & was well satisfied with the
results.

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: tinyurl.com/2tqujf

Email: ca...@carldouglasrowing.com Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
URLs: carldouglasrowing.com & now on Facebook @ CarlDouglasRacingShells

[John Greenly]

>In answer to John Greenly's question:
Yes, I have employed that test protocol, & was well satisfied with the
results.

Cheers -
Carl

Okay, then- please tell us how much actual inherent speed difference there is among good, competitive boats that you've tested. No need to name names, I just would like to have a sense of what sort of magnitude of difference we might expect. I'm guessing that with hulls as narrow as racing shells there's very little speed difference even with quite noticeably different shapes, that differences are probably below the 1% level for boats designed for the same weight, and that other factors- stability, rowability, comfort, handling in rough water conditions, rig stiffness, accuracy, adjustability, etc.- are probably more important in determining what boat a given crew will go fastest with. No?

Cheers
--John

[Carl]

Always the easy questions, eh?

A 1% difference in speed represents a 1.65 to 2.4 sec difference per
1000 metres. That would be about the limit of what I've found on a
range of still-air, flat-water occasions - around 0.5 to 1 sec/500m on
my chosen test protocol. It is the consistency of that differential
which provides the proof. And I would venture to suggest that most of
us would give our eye-teeth for even a 0.5sec/500m advantage when races
are so often won or lost by 1 to 2 seconds.

Clearly psychology matters. If you think the boat you have must be fast
(in George's case that might just possibly be due to a hull-colour
prejudice?), then maybe you work that little bit more effectively to
justify, or because of, your belief.

And comfort matters

When you introduce wind effects, a raft of other influences come into
play: wind drag on boat, oars, riggers & bodies; leeway drag under even
slight cross-winds; how the boat handles waves & how that affects the
crew. And I could go on...

An amusing example of the confusion wind effects cause in rowers' minds:
We supplied a pair of AeRoWing riggers to an Empacher 1x owner. He
wrote back some time later to ask why he was now faster than he'd been
against a competitor when sculling into a head-wind, but with less
advantage in a tail-wind. There was that "Doh!" moment when I suggested
that this might be due to the reduced wind resistance of his new riggers
- helping him against a head-wind but providing less of a 'sail' in a
tailwind.

Yes, comfort and rig do matter. And, yes, we have wind-tunnel tested
our riggers against a range of others.

You raise the matter of "boats designed for the same weight". Well,
most manufacturers provide for only 2 distinct hull sizes where we offer
6! (No, not 6-factorial ;) ). Rowers are normal people, not "the ideal
size", and one size does not fit all rowers. Shell design is not
straightforward but, rather, is a compromise between many considerations.

Shells don't race only on glassy water. But because shell design is too
often a relatively science free zone, & because equipment selection is
too often based on the interaction between faith and hype than on the
use of measurement and logic, rowers fall prey to the mind-set summed up
as: all shells are equal but some colours are more equal than others.
As has been said earlier in this thread, no coach got sacked for
choosing make X, however slow the crew then goes with it.

I'd love there to be more original thought & much more individual
testing of equipment. But we have first to get rowers thinking about
their equipment in the analytical way that happens in cycling and
sailing. I'm working on that, here and elsewhere.

[Kit Davies]

I think a lot of the doubt that some people have in rowing about testing
shells on water is the number of variables that have to be taken into
account when comparing multiple sets of results.

I'm certain a variable-free (or at least highly-reduced) environment
such as a testing tank would convince most sceptics. Do any makers have
or use tanks for validation of shell design? I assume you would need
some kind of oscillating rig to simulate boat surge.

Kit

[John Mulholland]

Perhaps the answer is to combine the boat test with seat racing. Each person will try his best to secure his place in the crew and the boat becomes just one more factor in the seat race. Don't let on that one of the races has the same crews as a previous one but in different boats!

John.

[Henry Law]

On 16/06/14 22:37, John Mulholland wrote:
> Don't let on that one of the races has the same crews as a previous one but in different boats!

I like the idea; very ingenious. But it still suffers from the problem
of seat racing: the gradual diminution of performance over the session
as the athletes tire.

[John Mulholland]

That shouldn't make a difference to which boat is faster, just the overall time of the piece. You normally measure the difference between the boats at the finish line, not the overall time of the piece. You are just including the boat in the calculations as another crew member. In normal seat racing, you may have to allow for one boat being faster than the other unless you have matched boats. If there is a real difference between the boats, it will show up just as well as a difference between the athletes.

John.

[John Greenly]

On Monday, June 16, 2014 8:27:15 AM UTC-4, Carl wrote:

> Always the easy questions, eh?

Yup, you know me! Well, many thanks, Carl- I knew you would handle it gracefully, and truthfully. And, I'm very reassured by your answer. I couldn't figure how there could be much more difference in plain flat-water speed than what you describe. And I think all the other factors that we listed really are important. For instance, you mentioned the question of the effect of leeway in crosswind, and I think that is an extremely significant effect that may vary substantially with boat design. So all shells are NOT created equal, far from it, but finding out which one is 2-3 sec faster over 2k on perfect flat water may not even be worth the bother, because other factors are more important.

In thanks for your reply, may I offer a helpful suggestion: maybe you should offer a Rainbow paint option, so that whatever color is magic will be sure to be included!

And- how about a new rigger design that would have more wind resistance from behind than from in front, so you win both ways? Or maybe some different fittings for downwind vs upwind conditions? After all, in the old days we'd strike the topgallants when it promised to blow hard on the nose.

Cheers,
John

[Carl]

Very many years ago we provided a GBR which was crew racing in the World
Champs in one of our doubles with an aerodynamically-shaped fairing. It
blended between the foredeck & the back of the bow sculler. It wasn't
big, it wasn't obvious & it wasn't illegal.

I explained to the crew & coach that this would reduce windage into head
& cross-head winds, & would even give a modest wind-assist when there
was a tailwind.

It went half-way round the world & came all the way back, but they never
even took it out of the box.

As you may know, we provide complete solutions to the shell-control &
leeway issues - those curious should visit:
www.carldouglasrowing.com/Steering_Shell_control
Yet the question I'm most asked is: "Doesn't that [little] Canard Fin
increase drag?"

My response is always, of course, that the drag on a small,
well-designed foil is minimal, whereas having the boat slide-slipping
due to uneven oar loadings & from every small or large steering input
inflicts continual leeway drag of a much greater magnitude - even on
straight courses, even in still airs. If we didn't need to steer or
control the shell on dead straight courses, why would we bother with
fins & rudders.

In rowing we do well to be fit, strong & well-trained, but we'd do even
better if to engage our brains in the systematic evaluation, selection &
use of every piece of our equipment.

But I seem to hear siren voices telling me to forget the science stuff &
go down the paint shop for a can of Dr. Greenly's go-faster rainbow
paint. We all know that primrose-coloured sheep go fastest ;)

[Kit Davies]

And mahogany-veneer brown doesn't even appear on the rainbow anyway, tsk :)

Kit

[Carl]

Tsk, indeed!

Who really thinks mahogany is "brown"?? It comes in a widerange and a
mix of glorious colours, varying widely within the grain of the wood and
from right across the reddish side of the pallette. And then there are
the wonderful grains.

And then consider the incredible resilience & lightness of the
fatigue-proof laminates, and the boats, that we make from these fabulous
mouldable structural composites. (Wood veneers are sheets of hollow
cellulosic fibres, aligned and fixed within a lignin resin matrix.

Drool over these pictures, folks:
http://tinyurl.com/l2lxzrp
And then look at all the other woods we can and do use when a client
chooses other than mahoganies, our objective being to offer clients real
aesthetic choice as well as functionality.

You asked for that ;)

[jjhunti...@gmail.com]

I don't think it's possible to reliably prove any difference between shells, especially when it comes to on-the-water performance. Too many variables.

I would struggle to be convinced there is a 0.55 - 1.1 percent difference in shell speed (assuming a 6 minute 2k). Much more to gain from good coaching than changing boats. Horses, chariot, etc, etc. Actually there is probably more to gain from changing oars before you change your boat, if the Dreissigackers are to be believed. And since there are still many international crews out there winning gold medals with the Big Blade, maybe they aren't.

Let's put it this way, if there was a boat that was demonstrably 1% faster, everyone would use it, and all the other boat-builders would copy it. I don't think it's possible to prove, because the human engine is so unreliable, and water is always varying. I think it would really require a 500m test in a tank (and what a tank that would be), with 8 rowing robots, to put down the exact same 40 odd strokes, every trial. And I don't think anyone's going to do that any time soon. You can try and get close with humans, but even with the most controlled test possible, someone who privileged one shell over the other would poke holes in it.

Lots of companies make fast, stiff hulls. I think the fact that some are perceived to be better than others has more to do with ergonomics, reliability, and customer service than short hulls vs long hulls, materials, or flashy paint schemes. A lot of times, athletes will row a shell in college, graduate, become a coach, and buy that shell (or another shell, depending on whether they enjoyed the experience or not). And they'll keep buying that shell, as long as it keeps working.

Jacob Huntington
Pocock Racing Shells

*Please note that opinions expressed are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer

[John Greenly]

On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 7:52:40 AM UTC-4, Carl wrote:

>But I seem to hear siren voices telling me to forget the science stuff &

go down to the paint shop for a can of Dr. Greenly's go-faster rainbow

paint. We all know that primrose-coloured sheep go fastest ;)

Gee, that name really does have a ring to it, if I may say so- I think we have a new product here.
I can supply the advertising copy, something like...

"Physicists say that this miracle paint, when applied by the skilled professionals at CD Racing Shells, induces an electrohydrodynamical dichotomy in nearby water molecules causing them to eschew contact with the hull, thereby reducing drag to unimaginable levels!"

My grandfather would be proud of me! He was actually a pioneer of modern psychologically-manipulative advertising, wrote books about it and started an early advertising agency in London, called Greenly's. I have been spending my life trying to atone for this blot on the family honor. until now.

Cheers,
John

[Carl]

I cannot agree either that all shells are really so similar in
performance - although through decades of flop-copying there are many
that may be - nor that a market so averse to testing and performance
measurement is up for the challenge of discerning differences of that order.

However, having invested my time and other people's efforts into
measuring those differences on a number of occasions, I am well aware
that they do exist. And surely any serious rower, if offered a
guaranteed 1 second race advantage over a close competitor, would seize
it even if that meant using a boat of a different make or hue?

After all, that to some extent is what folk are doing in buying, or
buying into, a boat of a particular make or style - except that they are
not going on their own measured assessment but on the slack presumption
that "that's the boat to use". Their choice is based on blind faith
plus hype, not actual speed (for them) between the posts.

As for the supposed unreliability of the human engine: a 2k race
involves around 220 strokes, i.e. 220 relevant samples over which to
average a performance. Often crews seem almost to know where to finish,
& by how much they'll win or lose, which again suggests that
performances are pretty predictable for a given crew. And I'm not
talking here about evaluating on the basis of a single race, as you
know. So while I accept the influences of varying conditions, one
should also be able to determine which boat goes best in which
conditions. And wouldn't that be a sensible thing to do?

On that last point, I do recall one person who applied that logic - the
great US LWt sculler, Larry Klecatsky. I seem to recall that he took 2
shells to some important regattas - a heavier one for possible headwinds
and a lighter one for easier conditions. Makes perfect sense to me.

As for which manufacturer is to believed about what: why, at a
competitive level should anyone, especially when forking out their own
funds, believe anything except their own evidence?

In rowing, most are losers since there can only be 1 winner. Being
human, losers tend to attribute their relative failure to the equipment
as much as to themselves. And then we're into the slippery area of
marketing rather than actual performance.

[Carl]

So Vance Packard didn't just have cars named after him? We're barely
responsible for the conduct of our offspring & not at all for that of
our forebears.

If I might be so bold, doesn't your promo require, nay demand, you
insert "quantum" somewhere. Try "quantum electrohydrodynamical"? If
that's agreed, then I think we're ready to take the sport by storm.

Sound the trumpet!

[John Greenly]

On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:15:34 AM UTC-4, Carl wrote:

>So Vance Packard didn't just have cars named after him? We're barely
responsible for the conduct of our offspring & not at all for that of
our forebears.

Oh- thank you! I finally feel absolved.

>If I might be so bold, doesn't your promo require, nay demand, you
insert "quantum" somewhere. Try "quantum electrohydrodynamical"? If
that's agreed, then I think we're ready to take the sport by storm.

Ahh, yes, perfect, I knew it was missing something! Well, now I look forward to my first royalty check.


But meanwhile, on to other things:
what do you think about your canard+rudder HyperSteer system for a single? The penalty in speed for me in my single is obvious with even fairly minor course corrections, never mind big curves in head races. Some of that is I'm sure due to poor technique, but whenever I look at the bow in my mirror while I'm turning and see all that water piling up on one side and all the turbulence, I think about it. Would your system work so well that the sculler wouldn't have to pull harder on the outside oar to turn? That would seem to be a huge advantage if true.

John

[magnus....@gmail.com]

I made this exact request of Carl a couple of years ago. I'll let him give you the answer he gave me ...

[Carl]

I'm too busy making the first batch of Dr. Greenly's patent paint (by
spooky action at a distance), although that might not be entirely true ;)

For the moment I can't recollect quite what had been my answer to
Magnus, so I'm laying myself wide open to charges of inconsistency. But
I'll give a hint of the current state of play:

John, you are quite right - it will work as well for a 1x as for fours,
quads and eights for which we currently supply HyperSteer systems.
Meanwhile, those who have AeRowFins on doubles find this alone makes a
big improvement to their steering and saves them the lopsided fatigue of
which you rightly complain.

We preparing to tool up for HyperSteer for both 1x and 2x, so please be
patient. And you will know that, when it's done, it will do exactly
what it says on the tin.

More I cannot presently say. Please watch this space.

Cheers -

[magnus....@gmail.com]

Well that's good news. Your answer to me at the time was that in a 1x there was insufficient space to allow enough foot/heel movement for it to work. I guess that being a foot size 45 / 10.5 is a factor, it'd likely be more feasible for a lwt woman, for example.

[Phil]

On Thursday, June 19, 2014 1:46:33 PM UTC+1, magnus....@gmail.com wrote:
> Well that's good news. Your answer to me at the time was that in a 1x there was insufficient space to allow enough foot/heel movement for it to work. I guess that being a foot size 45 / 10.5 is a factor, it'd likely be more feasible for a lwt woman, for example.

I imagine that the latest version will be voice activated over a Bluetooth headset... no more foot-twisting!

[magnus....@gmail.com]

Better still, automatic GPS position-sensing actuator.

A few years ago I, as I often did and do for sculling/rowing races (pre-dating Strava by some time :) ), taped a GPS unit onto the boat where I could see it for an event we in the UK have called the Boston Marathon, a 30 mile head-race on a narrow, twisty river. As a joke I managed to convince one of the officials that it was linked to our steering apparatus. He took it seriously and was about to bring over a more senior official, but I further persuaded him that I was joking.

[James HS]

On Thursday, 19 June 2014 13:46:33 UTC+1, magnus....@gmail.com wrote:
> Well that's good news. Your answer to me at the time was that in a 1x there was insufficient space to allow enough foot/heel movement for it to work. I guess that being a foot size 45 / 10.5 is a factor, it'd likely be more feasible for a lwt woman, for example.

Except a more efficient rudder (such as Carl's) and a geared foot mechanism could significantly reduce the degree of travel required.

having steered quads without the benefit of Carl's technology I am mid-design of a footplate that requires less gymnastics - the part I am through is in my head - just need to drop it into inventor and print it out :)

James

[Paul]

Mahe wins the world cup round in a Filippi - Empacher sales crash?

On Monday, July 16, 2012 12:06:57 AM UTC+12, Newsgroups wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
>
> This is likely to be a long read, so please forgive me in advance.
>
>
>
> I am aware that this topic has probably been visited many times over the
>
> years, but I have yet to find any definitive answers given in any of the
>
> previous incarnations of such a discussion. What I want is to get
>
> constructive and helpful responses and not the sort of responses that start
>
> with ...
>
>
>
> "Well, because they are, so don't worry about it!"
>
>
>
> Or
>
>
>
> "A friend of mine said that ...."
>
>
>
> Or those sorts of responses that you'll often find within forums that are
>
> unhelpful, ambiguous or plain rude.
>
>
>
> If possible, I am trying to find a general consensus as to why Empacher
>
> shells are so popular at the highest levels of competition. Sure, there are
>
> several other shell manufacturers that are also popular, but from an overall
>
> view it seems that Empacher still dominate and I'm wanting to try and find
>
> out exactly why.
>
>
>
> Now, before some of you out there want to flame me for casting any doubts
>
> over the pedigree or quality of Empacher's, then please know that I am not
>
> in any way trying to say that Empacher does not deserve its place at the top
>
> of the sport. No, I simply want to be given tangible and objective reasons
>
> as to why.
>
>
>
> Some of you may already be thinking that the choice of boat you like - or
>
> you and your crew prefer with regards to boat manufacturer is often a highly
>
> personal and therefore subjective one. I understand this, but then my
>
> question is still valid; Why do so many choose Empacher's? Even if the
>
> reasons are personal taste, there are so many crews at the World
>
> Championships that make that choice - so please tell me why.
>
>
>
> What things make Empachers your first choice over other quality
>
> manufacturers?
>
>
>
> From a more objective viewpoint, I look at the specifications of one quality
>
> shell manufacturer over another and if the supposed absolutes of weight,
>
> stiffness, durability, rigging flexibility and price are concerned then
>
> there are many
>
> other choices that match or exceed those of Empacher in terms of one or more
>
> of the above attributes.
>
>
>
> For example, according to independent tests of stiffness, Vespoli make
>
> generally stiffer shells than Empacher. In addition, other manufacturers
>
> appear to have spent a lot of time and money refining hull designs where I
>
> can't find any such references by Empacher.
>
>
>
> So, let's take another shell attribute; weight. If we assume that most
>
> manufacturers build their boats to FISA minimum weights, then surely most
>
> boats are all on the same playing field in this respect?
>
>
>
> Let's ask the same question in a more illustrative way perhaps.
>
>
>
> Why can't a crew win at the highest level in a Janousek instead of an
>
> Empacher? If build stats are to be believed then a Janousek is the same
>
> weight, stiffness and uses proven hull designs (e.g VEB).?
>
>
>
> Please do not reply by saying that "Janouseks are crap!". That sort of
>
> response is just not useful
>
>
>
> I've noticed that Filippi shells are also popular choices at the highest
>
> levels, but boat selections often appear to be experiments or "Let's see how
>
> this boat feels" before in many cases (although not all of course) the crews
>
> in question revert back to Empacher.
>
>
>
> Perhaps boat choices are a little like fashion. You want to try something
>
> because you see others doing so. For example, back in the 2000 Olympics
>
> Vespoli had Gold, Silver and 5th places in the men's heavyweight final. Team
>
> GB used their Vespoli shell to achieve their Gold medal, but the following
>
> season have reverted back to Empacher. Back around 2006 I think, there were
>
> an explosion of Filippi's on the scene and I think that a substantial
>
> percentage of boats used in that years World Championships were Filippi.
>
> Subsequent years have seen many crews that used Filippi go back to using
>
> Empacher.
>
>
>
> It's not, of course, always a one-way street. A few years ago I recall the
>
> final of the mens lightweight eight at the World Championships and thought
>
> it interesting that the German crew won Gold in an Italian Filippi and the
>
> Italian men competed in a German Empacher!
>
>
>
> Several of the top U.S colleges have switched from Vespoli's to Empacher
>
> despite the change costing them up to 50% more and according to coaches the
>
> German shells being somewhat more fragile. Even Mike Vespoli was told by one
>
> of these colleges coaches that the Empachers were "Flying machines.".
>
>
>
> So, my question remains: Why?
>
>
>
> Could we be talking psychology as much as technology? Do people "think" they
>
> perform better because they have an Empacher? Or is it more a case of
>
> feeling you must have what the majority is using in order to feel
>
> competitive?
>
>
>
> I've heard it said when asking why Empacher that "No coach was ever fired
>
> for choosing Empacher.". Perhaps this very sentiment is quite telling.
>
>
>
> Anyway, I think you get what I'm really wanting to know here via my
>
> ramblings. it would be useful for those who've used several top shell
>
> manufacturers including Empacher to try and give me an objective - or at
>
> least a tangible subjective reason as to why Empacher dominates at the top
>
> level of the sport.
>
>
>
> Please enlighten me as it's a question I've pondered over for many years.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Steve