2 pairs of concept 2 sculling blades for sale
noex
of different blades contactv 07919492233
mar...@tokyoleasing.co.uk
> 2 pairs of concept 2 smoothie sculling blades for sale due to purchase
> of different blades contactv 07919492233
where? how old? how much?
carolinetu
In which country?
Ted van de Weteringe
Yare BC, Norwich, UK. But you knew that from the UK mobile number.
Carl Douglas
Most Brits, some knowledgeable Dutch, & some others, knew that too. But
we narrowly-gifted individuals are not the sole readers of RSR. So
let's not leave relevant information encoded thus within an
international newsgroup on rowing. Nor blame the rest of the world for
its less-than-compendious knowledge of national phone systems.
By way of example, here's a little rant:
We need to accept each others' varied abilities & skills. I first used
computers when the bloody things ate cards & paper tapes, occupied whole
buildings & were like places for the worship of whirring mag tape drives
& clattering chain printers. Even so, I've always hated the attitudes
of geeks who treated their own narrow specialist knowledge of computers
as something to put them above & in power over normal, balanced humans.
The worst are the psychopathic "idiots savants" who think it smart to
propagate malware of all kinds & whose pet games destroy businesses &
even bring suicides. But there's a gradation right back to normal folk
who flounder when told to do anything beyond using an already set up
email system & get really stressed when told to click on a properties
tab. How truly frustrating for intelligent members of the latter
category to have someone further up the geek scale spout utterly
incomprehensible jargon at them. We know the jargonistas do so because
they're so out of touch with real life that they can't even see the need
to turn their arcane gibberish into plain English. It's just the
misplaced "I'm smarter than you" attitude that grates.
There, I feel much better now. Now what was your problem?
Cheers -
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)
Rob Collings
> We know the jargonistas do so because
> they're so out of touch with real life that they can't even see the need
> to turn their arcane gibberish into plain English.
Is this the point where we start telling brand new beginners to hold
the saxboards, mind the riggers, check the stretcher and close the
gates? ;-)
Rob.
Ted van de Weteringe
> Ted van de Weteringe wrote:
>>>> On Feb 19, 10:29 am, noex <stuart_ho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 2 pairs of concept 2 smoothie sculling blades for sale due to purchase
>>>>> of different blades contactv 07919492233
>>
>
> Most Brits, some knowledgeable Dutch, & some others, knew that too. But
> we narrowly-gifted individuals are not the sole readers of RSR. So
> let's not leave relevant information encoded thus within an
> international newsgroup on rowing.
Of course. I should have interpunctuated thus: "Yare BC, Norwich. (UK,
but you knew that from the UK mobile number.)" I got Yare by googling
his name from the email address.
TvdW
+3130
Carl Douglas
Could be. And stay with the sunken boat?
Mind you, the mind did boggle a bit over that instruction in the old
Water Safety Code - "Check your Velcros".
;)
TidewayUmpire
> Rob Collings wrote:
> > On 19 Feb, 16:22, Carl Douglas <c...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>We know the jargonistas do so because
> >>they're so out of touch with real life that they can't even see the need
> >>to turn their arcane gibberish into plain English.
>
> > Is this the point where we start telling brand new beginners to hold
> > the saxboards, mind the riggers, check the stretcher and close the
> > gates? ;-)
>
> > Rob.
>
> Could be. �And stay with the sunken boat?
>
> Mind you, the mind did boggle a bit over that instruction in the old
> Water Safety Code - "Check your Velcros".
> ;)
> Carl
> --
> Carl Douglas Racing Shells � � � �-
> � � �Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
> Write: � Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
> URLs: �www.carldouglas.co.uk(boats) &www.aerowing.co.uk(riggers)
While we are ranting [and not to be too much of an OF] hopefully,
sometime before the beginner gets anywhere near a boat or going out on
the water, someone perhaps even the Club Water Saftey Officer, using
jargon or not, has already made sure he/she [the beginner] knows all
about the cheapest and most effective bit of safety kit we have - heel
restraints.
What they are for, how they work, why & how to check them EVERY time
they go out. NOT to go out if they are faulty, how to replace them and
what, potentially, effective heel restraints save - the beginners
life.
Once thats done and understood, the other essentials for safety, not
having the shoes too tight, bow balls, bouyancy compartments etc., can
be covered
THEN we get on to saxboards and the other sexy stuff !!
paul_v...@hotmail.com
> Rob Collings wrote:
> > On 19 Feb, 16:22, Carl Douglas <c...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>We know the jargonistas do so because
> >>they're so out of touch with real life that they can't even see the need
> >>to turn their arcane gibberish into plain English.
>
> > Is this the point where we start telling brand new beginners to hold
> > the saxboards, mind the riggers, check the stretcher and close the
> > gates? ;-)
>
> > Rob.
>
> Could be. And stay with the sunken boat?
>
> Mind you, the mind did boggle a bit over that instruction in the old
> Water Safety Code - "Check your Velcros".
> ;)
> Carl
What in the heck is "Check your Velcro's"? Something to do with the
shoes?
And if so, what are they being checked for?
I rarely bother with fastening them down at all, since there are often
multiple straps and the string that connects them all for conveniently
pulling them up, in case of needing out quickly, has long been lost.
God only knows how that happened.
- Paul Smith
PS - Nice rant above. Of course that sort of thing NEVER happens here
on RSR. [;o)
Henning Lippke
> sometime before the beginner gets anywhere near a boat or going out on
> about the cheapest and most effective bit of safety kit we have - heel
> restraints.
Now this is drifting really of topic.
How can I introduce beginners to the importance of heel restraints if
the boats they initially use don't have installed shoes (only the
'advanced' boats have them)?
Henry Law
> How can I introduce beginners to the importance of heel restraints if
> the boats they initially use don't have installed shoes (only the
> 'advanced' boats have them)?
Assuming that these boats have a heel cup and a strap (what used to be
known as "clogs" over here) then you could point out that this a very
safe means of foot restraint, and emphasise that when they graduate to
the advanced boats they put themselves at greater risk.
--
Henry Law Manchester, England
John Mulholland
news:fe1b395c-6cc7-43c4...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
- Paul Smith
Isn't the string that threads through the multiple straps the spare heel
restraint?
..and how is any of this related to "2 pairs of concept 2 sculling blades
for sale"?
--
John Mulholland
Carl Douglas
Of course not!
>
> Isn't the string that threads through the multiple straps the spare heel
> restraint?
Errr, No. Supposed quick release of overtight straps across the shoe is
a nonsense in every respect:
1. Safety devices must operate passively
2. The heel restraint operateds passively & is your 1 & only means of
escape after capsize
3. No one should row or scull with the straps or laces across their
shoes tightened enough to prevent easy exit - there never being the
slightest need for tight lacing.
4. Velcro-fastened shoe straps have no safety function. They are just a
means of quickly (?) fitting your feet into the shoes. The occasional
linking of these straps by cords has no safety function: it leaves
inconvenient loops of string which not infrequently get trapped under
the Velcro, it helps a certain shoe maker (as you indicate) to extend
their trade-mark based on 3 of everything into the shoe fastenings as
well (& eventually leads to the tearing off of some of those supernumary
straps - a form of built-in obscolescence), it encourages sloppy
practice & it gives rise to the bogus notion that heel restraints are
optional/unnecessary.
>
> ..and how is any of this related to "2 pairs of concept 2 sculling blades
> for sale"?
>
That's how RSR threads, just like conversations, develop & wander.
Cheers -
k...@hastie.org.uk
<snip>
> 1. Safety devices must operate passively
<snip>
Not quite. Some safety devices must operate passively; some must not.
Prize of a pint of Brown Ale to the first reply stating the obvious
safety device in our sport that must NOT operate passively.
(PS. I am *not* selling 2 pairs of Concept 2 blades)
Ken Hastie
Carl Douglas
The ability to swim?
The boat, of course, must float & support its seated crew passively -
even when swamped.
Don't post that pint, Ken, it may not travel too well! Save it for when
next we meet, & I'll buy you one in return.
Rob Collings
> k...@hastie.org.uk wrote:
> > On 22 Feb, 12:30, Carl Douglas wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> >>1. Safety devices must operate passively
>
> > <snip>
>
> > Not quite. Some safety devices must operate passively; some must not.
>
I'd go for the brain myself. If you don't think about what you're
doing then no amount of passive safety devices will save you.
Unfortunately, I think it's this one that most rowers fare badly at.
Rob.
Rob Collings
> On 22 Feb, 13:31, Carl Douglas <c...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > k...@hastie.org.uk wrote:
> > > On 22 Feb, 12:30, Carl Douglas wrote:
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > >>1. Safety devices must operate passively
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > Not quite. Some safety devices must operate passively; some must not.
The other obvious one being a gas-inflation lifejacket, when worn in a
bow loader. But if you use your brain then you'd realise how silly
that would be :)
Rob.
k...@hastie.org.uk
> The other obvious one being a gas-inflation lifejacket, when worn in a
> bow loader. But if you use your brain then you'd realise how silly
> that would be :)
Rob has it.
Gas inflation lifejackets are generally available with two different
operating mechanisms. Some operate when a 'pill' in the actuating
device gets wet, or by a pressure sensing mechanism (from air to
water), which will automatically trigger the inflation. These passive
(mind you, it does depend on your exact definition of passive) devices
are not allowed to be worn by coxes in 'front loaders' where the cox
lies in an enclosed/restrictive area.
The other (manual) type can only be triggered by a pull on an
operating cord, therefore are less likely to inflate accidentally.
There are many applications where the first method of operation is
preferable (risk of unconsciousness when the casualty is in the water)
but they definitely do not have an application in 'front loaders'
where the cox can become trapped in the compartment. If you have ever
seen these lifejackets inflated you will know why.
So, Rob, if you are at Henley I'll get that bottle for you (despite
the fact it is now brewed in Gateshead and not Newcastle, but nothing
is perfect in this world anymore)
Ken Hastie
James.
>I first used computers when the bloody things ate cards & paper tapes, occupied whole buildings & were like places for the worship...
I fear the problem may have been that you are describing a horse...
>Could be. And stay with the sunken boat?
Using ARA pedantry surely this should be 'stay with the swamped boat'?
Staying with a sunken boat is never too clever... Perhaps that
reinforces the point you were making about the jargon though.
On a serious point: have shoes with laces been outlawed now? I was
under the impression that they were and we try and only use velcro
shoes but through necessity had a pair with laces in recently and we
weren't pulled up on it? Should we have been?
k...@hastie.org.uk
> On a serious point: have shoes with laces been outlawed now? I was
> under the impression that they were and we try and only use velcro
> shoes but through necessity had a pair with laces in recently and we
> weren't pulled up on it? Should we have been?
Do you mean by your Club Safety Advisor? Or are you (like so many
others) relying on the 'grumpy' Umpire at competition time to spoil
your fun.
That is what exasperates me so often. At the recent Tyne Head,
officials checked most boats and gave a yank on the shoes to find
quite a few restraints gave way. This clearly means the competitors
are not fulfilling their obligations prior to attending competition.
I have a suggestion; why not check the Water Safety Code (or whatever
the new name for it is) before you enter your boat, even for
practice? A quaint suggestion I know, but a side benefit is it just
might save your life. A side benefit is Umpires/Officials may actually
then have no cause to be grumpy.
Would you drive your car around with no Road Fund Licence, MOT or
Insurance and then complain because the police eventually stop you and
charge you (when you didn't bother to check they were all in place) ?
Go figure.....
(Not particularly having a go at you, but I Umpire all year round,
including in the silly season when I have to demonstrate to
competitors how pathetic their restraints are and suddenly I am the
nasty man who broke your equipment)
If you wait until competition time to find out your shortcomings, then
who is to blame ? The Umpire or Official with safety responsibility?
I think not.
....and I still don't have 2 pairs of Concept 2 blades for sale 8:)
Ken Hastie
Carl Douglas
> Carl:
>
>>I first used computers when the bloody things ate cards & paper tapes, occupied whole buildings & were like places for the worship...
>
>
> I fear the problem may have been that you are describing a horse...
No, 'orses eats 'ay. Goats, however, eat anything. And the first
computer mouse I ever saw lived in a mainframe computer's card-punch
chaff bin. OTOH, we do now have Trojans, so horses may be back in
fashion....
>
>
>>Could be. And stay with the sunken boat?
>
>
> Using ARA pedantry surely this should be 'stay with the swamped boat'?
> Staying with a sunken boat is never too clever... Perhaps that
> reinforces the point you were making about the jargon though.
Difficult, that one. Said pedants have refused to accept that a swamped
boat is a life-threatening problem when not fully buoyant as long as you
stay with it. Which means they really do want & expect you to stay with
a sunken boat, regardless. As we found from Gary Harris's infamous
letter to the Minister for Sport in December 2002, they don't accept
that the word "sink" in any way equates to "going down" - regardless of
the range of dictionary definitions & both common parlance & technical
usage, all of which say it does.
Still, that's par for the course for a safety management under a water
safety adviser who, at the last Council meeting, was still blissfully
unaware of the Liverpool University swamping rescue on the R Weaver at
Runcorn. Stuart Ward lives in Bradford, only 60 miles from Runcorn, but
apparently never gets to hear what the well-informed of the rowing world
long since knew. Determinedly blind, asleep at the wheel, or driving
without due care & attention?
>
>
> On a serious point: have shoes with laces been outlawed now? I was
> under the impression that they were and we try and only use velcro
> shoes but through necessity had a pair with laces in recently and we
> weren't pulled up on it? Should we have been?
I'm unaware of any ban on laces. Just that rowing shoes nowadays come
with flaps or tapes held by the invention of M. de Mestral.
Cheers -
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Find: http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
James.
Thanks for taking the time to reply, but you havent even begun to
answer the question I asked!
I am not talking about heel restraints, I am well aware of the need
for them and we check ours regularly (though I admit I missed a loose
pair before our last race).
I asked about lace up shoes- are you permitted (by ARA rules) to row/
race with lace up shoes now?
As I said before 99.9% of our boats have velcro fastened shoes but we
we had to stick a pair of laceups in before a race because that was
all we had. Was that against the rules or was it ok?
If it is against common sense and recommended practice then thats one
thing- we don't do it unless we have no option (new shoes on order),
is it against the requirements?
If someone could answer that I would appreciate it.
James.
Meh, I just replied to Carl's post but pressed the wrong button (and I
like computers, lol)
ref. the goat, a better analogy than a horse!
ref. the shoes, thanks- I am glad that we haven't broken the rules,
but I am surprised that we haven't velcro would give easily by hand or
by a good kick when wet, unlike laces. That may be a reflection of
what you say about the safety advisors, but then I wouldn't have heard
about the Liverpool incident if I hadn't been reading RSR...
To reassure the umpire- our club policy is velcro and our coaches
carry spare restraints as inevitably they wear through, the question
really meant 'shouldn't or mustn't use lace-ups.
k...@hastie.org.uk
<snip>
> Thanks for taking the time to reply, but you havent even begun to
> answer the question I asked!
<snip>
Read my reply again and you will see not only did I begin to answer
your question, I answered it in the best way possible.
I said "why not check the Water Safety Code"
I also hinted you should have a word with your Club Safety Advisor.
If those answers are not good enough, then yes, please do just go by
whatever is said in this Forum; just beware that not every answer you
will read here (other than mine of course <grin>) will be factual,
accurate or even advisable.
If you don't see my point, then there is no point in pressing it any
further.
Ken Hastie
James.
Thanks Ken, perhaps you did tell me how to answer my own question,
though I really don't get why you were talking about heel restraints
but never mind.
Fortunately I have the Water Safety Code on my bookshelf and in the
*guidance* notes there is the following:
2.6.1.2 h) Where "shoes" are fitted in the boat, check that the laces
are adequate for their purpose. Check also, when tied, that they are
not too tight, thereby immobilising the feet. Check also the condition
of shoes and their fixing. Where "velcro" straps are fitted, check for
wear and replace regularly.
SO there we go, I have my answer now. The reason I asked, despite
having the code here was because I had heard (possibly falsely) that
they were to become 'illegal'- apparently if this is to happen it has
not yet..
TidewayUmpire
>
> - Show quoted text -
James,
You MAY wear lace up shoes or velcro fastened shoes or any shoes with
any sort of fastening accross the top of the foot without violating
the rules of racing or upsetting anyone on Control Commission.
You SHOULD make sure the shoes you use are fit for purpose; not so
delapidated and worn out that they are held together/secondarily
constructed with duct tape & staples as one clown I checked last year
did, and are fastened accross the foot loosely so they will roll off
the foot/the foot will roll out of them easily AND WITHOUT ANY OTHER
INTERVENTION as the boat tips over and you gracefully enter the H2O or
the boat sinks and you suddenly need to get the tootsies out. [Anyone
doubt this happens look at the Big Blades photos of the Italian eight
in last years Head]
You MUST ensure that the heel restraint is robust enough to resist the
panic tug of a fit athelete who is c***ping him/herself at the sudden
prospect of a watery end [Anyone doubt this happens look at the Big
Blades photos of the Italian eight in last years Head, number 5, he's
not enjoying it] and not longer than about 5 cm - certainly short
enough to ensure the heel cannot come up higher than the instep when
the heel is raised. There is no need or advantage to have them longer
as the foot cannot contort itself to the degree that longer restraints
are necessary.
I echo Ken Hastie, Umpires see too many crews, and too many of them
from schools, presenting their boats in dreadful order at the early
regattas that have obviously been in that state and used in winter
training conditions for some time.
marika
<k...@hastie.org.uk> wrote in message
news:a46be70d-8002-4089...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> Read my reply again and you will see not only did I begin to answer
> your question, I answered it in the best way possible.
>
> I said "why not check the Water Safety Code"
>
> I also hinted you should have a word with your Club Safety Advisor.
>
> If those answers are not good enough, then yes, please do just go by
> whatever is said in this Forum; just beware that not every answer you
> will read here (other than mine of course <grin>) will be factual,
> accurate or even advisable.
>
> If you don't see my point, then there is no point in pressing it any
> further.
>
>
> Ken Hastie
>
>
>
I wonder about Disney's Water Safety code for all it's little boat rides.
I was on the "It's a Small World After All" = and dipped my finger in the
water
My friend said: get your hand out of that Petri dish
mk5000
"Now all I have is riches and pictures and stitches
Money could never buy what you gave
And though my heart is aching and breaking I'm making
The most of what you send my way"--lentil, sia
>
Richard Packer
>There are many applications where the first method of operation is
>preferable (risk of unconsciousness when the casualty is in the water)
>but they definitely do not have an application in 'front loaders'
>where the cox can become trapped in the compartment. If you have ever
>seen these lifejackets inflated you will know why.
And indeed auto-inflating lifejackets (and foam buoyancy aids, with
their permanent buoyancy) are explicitly banned for bow-loaders in the
Rules of Racing for that very reason.
Unfortunately, it is not easy to tell at a glance what sort of
inflation mechanism a lifejacket has [1], or indeed if it's got a gas
cylinder installed at all. The wearer *must* a) know how to check it
and b) make sure they do check it regularly.
At a recentish Thames Region Umpires' seminar it was suggested, if I
remember correctly, that clubs might like to put a large and obvious M
or A on the outside of their manual and auto lifejackets respectively
to help people identify them.
[1] The toggle on the pull-cord gives you a clue, but different
maunfacturers use different toggles, so it's not 100% reliable as an
identifier.
Richard Packer
>Do you mean by your Club Safety Advisor? Or are you (like so many
>others) relying on the 'grumpy' Umpire at competition time to spoil
>your fun.
>
>That is what exasperates me so often. At the recent Tyne Head,
>officials checked most boats and gave a yank on the shoes to find
>quite a few restraints gave way. This clearly means the competitors
>are not fulfilling their obligations prior to attending competition.
>
>I have a suggestion; why not check the Water Safety Code (or whatever
>the new name for it is) before you enter your boat, even for
>practice? A quaint suggestion I know, but a side benefit is it just
>might save your life. A side benefit is Umpires/Officials may actually
>then have no cause to be grumpy.
>
>Would you drive your car around with no Road Fund Licence, MOT or
>Insurance and then complain because the police eventually stop you and
>charge you (when you didn't bother to check they were all in place) ?
>
>Go figure.....
>
>(Not particularly having a go at you, but I Umpire all year round,
>including in the silly season when I have to demonstrate to
>competitors how pathetic their restraints are and suddenly I am the
>nasty man who broke your equipment)
>
>If you wait until competition time to find out your shortcomings, then
>who is to blame ? The Umpire or Official with safety responsibility?
>I think not.
Amen to that. Why though do we persist in doing the boat checks at
heads and regattas only seconds before the boat goes afloat? It gives
the (entirely incorrect) impression that Control Commission umpires
are checking the boats (we're not; we're checking that the crew has
checked their boat), and if faults are found, they invariably get
bodged, not fixed properly.
If CC umpires did actually apply the letter of the law, then boats
that are presented with faults would be excluded (Rule 2-3-8a). The
rule doesn't say "shall be excluded for a couple of minutes while the
coach finds a roll of duct tape or steals a manky shoelace from a
passer-by". Harsh, yes, absolutely, it's intended to be, but we all
know that these boats that turn up at an event in an unsafe condition
are used day in, day out back at their home clubs in the same (or
worse) condition. Perhaps then clubs and crews would take it
seriously. Is that a flying pig I see on the horizon?
An alternative approach is not to have the CC umpire check the boat at
all. Get the crew to put the boat on trestles (or get half of them to
hold the boat on the half-turn while the rest of the crew does the
check), and ask them to demonstrate to the CC umpire that their boat
meets the standard by checking their own heel restraints while the CC
umpire makes sure they're checking them properly. This serves two
purposes - 1) it enables the CC umpire to make sure the crew know how
to check a boat properly, and 2) it is the *crew* not the umpire who
will have decided that the boat's OK or not (as it should be). Such
an approach might take a little longer than the current way we do
things, and may be impractical at a tiny number of events, but the
vast majority of events could do it this way with minimal (or zero)
effort. Put the onus back where it belongs - on the *crew*.
The other thing we could, and IMO should, do is to keep a record of
boats that fail CC checks (easy to do now that all Thames region boats
and many boats elsewhere have unique boat IDs). These lists should be
circulated to the relevant regional rowing councils and umpires
commissions, with summaries sent to offending clubs. If a boat is
repeatedly presented at events with the same unfixed fault, then
action could, and probably should, be taken against the offending
club. At the very least, we would be helping clubs to identify faulty
boats.
Are any of these suggestions unfair, unreasonable or difficult to
implement? If not, then let's do it.
Either way, I would echo Ken's comments and remind crews that it is
entirely *their responsiblity* to make sure their boat's properly
prepared every single time it goes on the water, and if and when a CC
umpire discovers that the crew's not checked their boat adequately,
then please do remember to thank him or her for doing *your* job for
you. ;-)
Oh and I don't have any blades for sale either, but it seems a bit
late in the day to change the thread subject line now!
Richard Packer
<use...@rjSURNAME.org.yookay> wrote:
>Unfortunately, it is not easy to tell at a glance what sort of
>inflation mechanism a lifejacket has [1], or indeed if it's got a gas
>cylinder installed at all. The wearer *must* a) know how to check it
>and b) make sure they do check it regularly.
And another thing (don't you just hate it when people reply to their
own posts)...
The RNLI have some handy lifejacket tips on their website
http://tinyurl.com/2a9w99, e.g. how to adjust them correctly
http://tinyurl.com/2g2z2v, how to maintain them
http://tinyurl.com/2xuspz and a poster http://tinyurl.com/ynkp6s with
maintenance advice.
Christopher Anton
"Richard Packer" <use...@rjSURNAME.org.yookay> wrote in message
news:hd01s3h4g5026un31...@4ax.com...
>
> The other thing we could, and IMO should, do is to keep a record of
> boats that fail CC checks (easy to do now that all Thames region boats
> and many boats elsewhere have unique boat IDs). These lists should be
> circulated to the relevant regional rowing councils and umpires
> commissions, with summaries sent to offending clubs. If a boat is
> repeatedly presented at events with the same unfixed fault, then
> action could, and probably should, be taken against the offending
> club. At the very least, we would be helping clubs to identify faulty
> boats.
>
> Are any of these suggestions unfair, unreasonable or difficult to
> implement? If not, then let's do it.
>
Richard you may be pleased to know that this is a suggestion of the WSC
(with exactly the sanction that you suggest) which was taken up by the NUC
so you will probably see these boat check logs in action during the regatta
season - we will certainly be checking in the West Mids.
Richard Packer
<c.a...@NOSPAM.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Richard you may be pleased to know that this is a suggestion of the WSC
>(with exactly the sanction that you suggest) which was taken up by the NUC
>so you will probably see these boat check logs in action during the regatta
>season - we will certainly be checking in the West Mids.
Good heavens. Where did they get that idea from I wonder? I imagine
it was all their own work, and nothing to do with the self-same
suggestion that I emailed to them on 11 November last year in response
to the request for feedback on their (dreadful) consulation documents
(an email that no-one bothered to ackowledge).
Christopher Anton
"Richard Packer" <use...@rjSURNAME.org.yookay> wrote in message
Well whatever, it seems to have worked!
James.
And at what point will the 'offending' boat be taken off the lists? Or
will it just be an interminable list that grows by the day?
I teach novices, they are rough with their kit which is never new in
the first place. We check things before races, but (as I said earlier)
I missed a heel restraint. My fault, I know that- the boat was not
safe. I had a pack of laces (for the purpose) in my coaching bag. Lace
was fitted, I checked it, the umpire/marshal checked it. Under your
'strict' version of the rules either or both of the following would
have happened: that crew would have not been permitted to race despite
the boat now being safe and/or we would have been put on the 'naughty
list' so that next time a lace snaps in that boat we will get the
whole club in trouble. Unless there is a time span to these
'offenses'?
Im not against being safe- as a coach and (now ex) president it was me
in the firing line if something went wrong, I know that and therefore
want to make sure everything and everyone will be ok however there
comes a point when you will be generating reams of paper with the
intention of stopping them row (and I can see the counter argument
coming that you don't want to stop them from rowing, you want to make
them safe, but just checking before the race should be sufficient)
However, getting the crew to check the boat whilst supervised by the
marshal seems an excellent idea as it does ensure that the crew know
what and how to check their own kit.
rdup...@hotmail.com
................ and/or we would have been put on the 'naughty
> list' so that next time a lace snaps in that boat we will get the
> whole club in trouble. Unless there is a time span to these
> 'offenses'?
>
> Im not against being safe- as a coach and (now ex) president it was me
> in the firing line if something went wrong, I know that and therefore
> want to make sure everything and everyone will be ok however there
> comes a point when you will be generating reams of paper with the
> intention of stopping them row (and I can see the counter argument
> coming that you don't want to stop them from rowing, you want to make
> them safe, but just checking before the race should be sufficient)
>
> However, getting the crew to check the boat whilst supervised by the
> marshal seems an excellent idea as it does ensure that the crew know
> what and how to check their own kit.
James - I too welcome Richard P's suggestion of inviting the crew to
do its own checks under umpire's [PLEASE!] supervision, and I'll give
it a go next time I'm on control commission - might be Saturday next
1st March, at the W VIIIs HoRR ..... Simon, you'll let me know what
duty I'm on?
I won't quarrel with the idea of keeping a log of pisstaking clubs/
crews, since it's what I proposed in a letter to Regatta mag quite
several years ago now.
I think I understand your reservation about generating reams of paper,
and stopping novices from racing, but please consider three anecdotes
which are within my personal experience in quite recent years .....
a] The Novice VIII from the medical school of a "Russell Group"
university, which I found had completed the W VIIIs Head in cold and
fairly unpleasant conditions with just three heel restraints of any
sort out of a possible sixteen. [Bad luck that my son's flatmate was
in the crew, most of whom burst into tears when they discovered what a
nasty man John's Dad was ..... word came back that the individuals
were blameless; apparently the cox had "done safety" but the rest of
them hadn't .....]
b] The VIII which was presented at more than one Thames regatta three
or four years ago with the remains of about five out of eight buoyancy
compartment mountings for hatch covers, and NO hatch cover at all for
any of those hatches.
Yes, you've guessed it, the VERY SAME "Russell Group" university
c] The [again academic] VIII which was presented to me at Oxford City
Royal Regatta 2007, in a congested area just before boating. The
stroke man waited until I was just about to give each of his shoes a
tug, and said in a helpful knowlegeable voice "Yes, we need to do that
one". Please ask yourself - did he know that his boat was unsafe and
could not be passed to race? ..... and what had been his approach to
that little difficulty?
If you believe as I do, [i] that racing in a regatta isn't very
dangerous [b] that training outings out of sight of an umpire are far
more dangerous and [c] that unfortunately, until the sport introduces
unannounced safety inspections of clubs, control checks at regattas
and heads offer our only chance to save these loons from the
consequences of their own stupidity, then I hope you might agree on
reflection, that to document defaulters is long overdue!
Richard
James.
Makes perfect sense and your illustrations are fairly horrific!
Bureaucracy has its place without a doubt, and if it will make things
safer (as in really make a difference) then I would be all in favour.
Unfortunately what I see here is a way of clubs with minor problems
being penalised on a large scale and that I would object to.
As long as the process has been thought through properly with time-
limiters built in and an 'offending scale' so that one lace snapping
or being absent is not treated the same way as a boat that has no
hatchcovers.
Good luck to all of you who are now to soon be seen sporting a list
with pretty much every boat in the country on it-it happens to
everyone at some point.
Richard Packer
<jamie_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> We check things before races
And therein lies the problem. Why don't you check boats before
*every* outing, as you are supposed to? Sadly it's not at all unusual
for coaches (whether ex-presidents or not) to fail to teach their
crews what to check, how to check it or when to check it (let's say it
again - before *EVERY SINGLE OUTING* not just races). With novices in
particular, it's essential that this is correctly taught. It only
takes seconds, so why don't people bother? Crews will happily spend
hours fiddling with the rig, yet begrudge a few seconds to make sure
their boats are safe at all times. Strange isn't it?
Carl Douglas
All moves in the right direction but, as rduparq points out, defective
equipment at a regatta was, in almost every such case, defective during
a part or all of the preceding months of training.
If safety is brought up to scratch (barely) only at regattas, then there
is zero understanding within that club that safety matters. In short,
the club & its members are collectively negligent, sloppy & foolish.
And clubs which fit that description also make poor rowers.
Let's examine the 1 lace instance: it can easily be enough to kill
someone for just 1 heel restraint in 16 is defective. Safety of that
kind is not subject to arguments of scale.
And, while we're at it, lets review what we use for heel restraints.
Where is it written or demonstrated that a rower's life may safely hang
by a mere shoe lace - an object conforming to no known standard, which
may be chafed, overlength & may even be as weak as a mere cotton thread?
For comparison, I let no boat out of our shop which does not have
every heel restrained to a solid point on the stretcher board by a
double length of trapped & sealed braided-nylon cord which will let the
heel rise by no more than 50mm.
Equipment safety is not something to make up as you go along. Heaven
knows the ARA has acted as if it were, but they have repeatedly shown
themselves to be a bunch of arrogant gentleman(?)-amateur wallies who
understand neither the fundamentals of safety management nor the
relevant sciences, & they have generally been too bloody pompous & lazy
to address that deficiency in themselves.
Individual rowers & their clubs are, each one of them, responsible for
the safety of their colleagues. Despite official inertia & worse, there
is ample sound advice available (mostly via RSR archives) & anyone is
free to ask me or others like Richard Packer whether what they have is
up to snuff or dangerous enough for a prop in a rowing snuff movie. A
well-run club is not made up of mere users & abusers but of people who,
because they mean to win & win well, care to do everything right.
People who consider safety, or good rowing, or care for equipment, to be
a waste of time or an intrusion on their own freedoms ought to be made
to think again or to quit. There are plenty more who want to row, &
tightly-run clubs really are more attractive to new members.
Cheers -
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Find: http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
Christopher Anton
"James." <jamie_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9cf91682-07ea-4604...@34g2000hsz.googlegroups.com...
The ida is that these lists will be fed back through the RWSA so that she
can check if there are areas that might need a visit. RWSAs are perfectly at
liberty to visit clubs to chec on their safety arrangements and RRCs are
equally at liberty to suspend clubs
TidewayUmpire
<c.an...@NOSPAM.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "James." <jamie_wil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
" RWSAs are perfectly at liberty to visit clubs to chec on their
safety arrangements"
I'd like to know how long RWSA's have been around for [Iknow its bad
grammar] and how many visits to clubs to check on Safety Issues have
been made in that time.
Richard Packer
<c.a...@NOSPAM.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>The ida is that these lists will be fed back through the RWSA so that she
>can check if there are areas that might need a visit. RWSAs are perfectly at
>liberty to visit clubs to chec on their safety arrangements and RRCs are
>equally at liberty to suspend clubs
I'd hope clubs would treat it as constructive criticism rather than a
threat, and use these reports as a timely reminder to tighten up their
boat checks etc. If clubs need help in understanding how to check and
fix boats, they only have to ask and I'm sure RWSAs (or indeed any
member of their local RRC or RUC) would be delighted to help! Only
those clubs that can't, won't or don't react to these reports should
have anything to worry about. If a club's fleet comes up to scratch
now, it won't even get a report in the first place!
Carl Douglas
Now please stop a mo' to ponder the anomaly of coxes in PFDs.
Rowing is a complex of self-denial. I offer a guide to official thinking:
1. Officials believe rowing is utterly safe & its boats perfect. To
say otherwise might worry parents of young rowers, so we won't mention it.
2. The sport defined as safe & the boats perfect, boats will never
sink. So safety measures are a rather irrelevant pain.
3. Due to clairvoyant risk assessments (always made by paragons of
virtue of infinite expertise), boats will never unexpectedly sink.
4. Should a boat fill up, it may (they say) go down a bit but never,
never, never actually sink (to the bottom).
5. It might sink a bit (only don't say "sink") but, since it won't go
to the bottom, it'll 100% support all who, hitherto seated in it, now
(just to save the boat from damage, you see) must swim.
6. So that's OK. Those rowers can swim in cold water for as long as it
takes for rescue. They just have to stay with the boat. Rowers are, of
course, fit, perfect swimmers of unending endurance. Besides, a swamped
boat which couldn't support them seated will certainly give ample
support to 9 increasingly cold & panicky rowers. They only need
self-control.
7. Anyway, who's that Archimedes fellah they keep on about? Some
bloody Greek? Maybe a mate of the nutter in the barrel? Pah! What
would he know about rowing shells? We, who've never soiled our hands in
science, know everything. We're officials! Officials are perfect &
never get it wrong. Beside, accidents don't happen in rowing ('cos we
always hide the evidence & blame any victims).
8. Hold on, though. Coxes are little chaps. Little chaps do feel the
cold, unlike strapping rowers. That's why they insist on wrapping up
well in winter. And coxes are often kids. What if one of them got too
cold to swim?
9. >Flash of combined inspiration & amnesia!!< Forget all the rest of
them, in just a layer of thin Lycra - we must save this poor little,
well-wrapped cox! Forget, too, our stated unshakable belief in the
ability of rowers to gain support from & hold onto a zero-buoyant log -
this cox needs our support!
10. So ordain that, while the rest can swim for their lives without
support (because we fought off silly demands for full shell buoyancy),
coxes _must_ wear PFDs.
That's it then. A real safety advance made. Mandatory PFD for the best
insulated member of the crew. No to mandatory shell buoyancy. Sod the
rest of them. Even if the rest of the crew drowns, at least we have 1
live scapegoat to offload the blame onto.
Now some cold reality. Who knows what can happen where only 1 person in
a bunch, stuck in cold water, has personal flotation? Eventually,
stoicism breaks down. Those at their wits' end & scared for their lives
may seek to cling to the only available bit of flotation. How many
drowning hypothermics will a 100 Newton PFD support? Just 1, the cox in
the middle. That person get pushed under by the rest & drowns first.
In short, a mandatory PFD for cox exposes the folly of a policy that
still won't mandate full underseat buoyancy & requires no personal
flotation for the lightly-clad rowers. It demands that, should the
underbuoyant boat swamp, the rowers cling to it for non-existent or
minimal support. Only the well-insulated cox gets a PFD - 'cos boats
might sink (oops!).
In technically expert circles the common term for that kind of thinking
is: "Arse about face".
k...@hastie.org.uk
> [1] The toggle on the pull-cord gives you a clue, but different
> maunfacturers use different toggles, so it's not 100% reliable as an
> identifier.
Not sure about that one. An auto-inflation lifejacket is often fitted
with a pull cord as a back-up for the occasion when the auto-inflation
mechanism doesn't work and therefore can be misinterpreted as a manual
device.
As an aside, I wonder how many lifejackets have been inflated and then
packed away again without replacing the cylinder? The answer is
probably to be found in the question 'What is done with the lifejacket
that has inflated?' My money is on it being stuffed in a corner until
someone needs it again and they will fold it up and use it again.
Yes, it can be inflated orally, but that is really designed for
topping up rather than inflating from scratch.
I wonder how many lifejackets have the cylinder loose in it's
fitting? (Didn't the RNLI carry out a recent survey that found an
incredible 40% or so that were not screwed up tight and would be
inffective if operated?)
I can also tell you that I never saw the policing of boat safety
issues (as discussed in this thread) as being an Umpires role. In my
mind it is clearly the responsibility of the Club and the Club Safety
Advisor to deal with these. When I was Chairman of the Regional
Umpires Commission, I proposed at the National Umpires Commission
annual gathering that we (as Umpires) should withdraw from this
activity and leave it to the Clubs to recognise and accept their
responsibilities. The view has already been expressed that these
boats have been in use for many months before the nasty umpire does
his deed.
Anyway, I was the sole and lonely voice in the wilderness on this one
8:)
Ken Hastie
...former Regional Umpire Chairman who now risks his life on yachts
instead
David Biddulph
news:05b7e1d1-e7f6-4501...@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On 23 Feb, 20:27, Richard Packer wrote:
>
>> [1] The toggle on the pull-cord gives you a clue, but different
>> maunfacturers use different toggles, so it's not 100% reliable as an
>> identifier.
>
> Not sure about that one. An auto-inflation lifejacket is often fitted
> with a pull cord as a back-up for the occasion when the auto-inflation
> mechanism doesn't work and therefore can be misinterpreted as a manual
> device.
I think what Richard was getting at was that at one time there was some
correlation between the *shape* of the toggle and the mode of operation.
With the Crewsaver ones, for example, there was one shape of toggle on the
manual ones, a different shape on the automatic, and a diferent shape again
on the Hammar variety (which needs a little bit of hydrostatic pressure as
well as wetness to activate), but (as Richard says) you can't rely on that.
--
David Biddulph
Rowing web pages at
http://www.biddulph.org.uk/
rdup...@hotmail.com
...................................
>
> I can also tell you that I never saw the policing of boat safety
> issues (as discussed in this thread) as being an Umpires role. In my
> mind it is clearly the responsibility of the Club and the Club Safety
> Advisor to deal with these. When I was Chairman of the Regional
> Umpires Commission, I proposed at the National Umpires Commission
> annual gathering that we (as Umpires) should withdraw from this
> activity and leave it to the Clubs to recognise and accept their
> responsibilities. The view has already been expressed that these
> boats have been in use for many months before the nasty umpire does
> his deed.
>
> Anyway, I was the sole and lonely voice in the wilderness on this one
> 8:)
>
> Ken Hastie
> ...former Regional Umpire Chairman who now risks his life on yachts
> instead
Ken, I've some sympathy with your voice in the wilderness, but I
disagree, for three [isn't it always three?] reasons
a] The first isn't terribly logical, but it's basically fear of the
"Tom Simpson effect" ..... if safety rules aren't enforced by some
competent authority, I've a fear that competitors will tend to miss
important stuff out [eg the quite several ounces in weight that
effective buoyancy costs] in order to keep up with the perceived
competition. [In that connection, best not get me started on bow-
loaded coxes for novices and juniors at modest regattas with twisty
courses.]
b] Is there a possible argument relating to "Duty of Care"? ie does a
regatta secretary need nowadays need to cover herself against a
possible civil suit or inquest, where Messrs Sue Grabbit & Runne seek
to prove an organiser failing in her Duty?
[In connection with lawyers, see Shakespeare, Henry VI pt 2, act4,
sc2]
c] See also - was it Richard Nixon or one of his entourage? - on
hearts, minds and balls.
Until Carl's silver charm and impeccable logic have brought Safety
into the hearts and minds of oarspersons, I reckon we'll need to use
sanctions. As the commando sergeant instructor says, "He wants to go
where his balls go". Where better to do some good, than where a crew
desiring something, and its boat, meet a licensed regulator?
I think there needs to be rather more "Get that equipment back to the
trailer park. Bring it back if you want to, and can do it in time for
your race, in a state fit for purpose"
Competitors must understand that they can't bring flaky equipment
along in the hope that it will slip past, and in the knowledge that at
many regattas they will totally block the boating queue if they are
asked to make repairs.
Just a few hesitant thoughts, Richard