Wintech heel restraints
David Biddulph
(http://www.rowingservice.com/new.html) about a problem with Wintech heel
restraints, where an Evesham sculler capsized and couldn't get her feet out
of the shoe because the heel restraint failed at the point where the lace
goes into the plastic clip.
Another problem, encountered more frequently, is that those Wintech heel
restraint clips can easily come unclipped from the ring on the heel of the
shoe. After some investigation it has been realised that they come
unclipped easily if they are fitted with the clip opening pointing towards
the shoe, whereas they are much more secure if fitted with the clip opening
pointing away from the shoe. The British Rowing water safety adviser took
some photos at the weekend, and hopefully these will soon appear on the
British Rowing website to give the information to competitors and control
commission umpires. EVERY boat that we saw at the weekend fitted with these
heel restraints had them fitted the wrong way round. It should be noted
that this doesn't just apply to Wintech boats as we found the problem on
boats from BBG, Lola and Stampfli, presumably where Wintech shoes had been
fitted as replacements for the original equipment. A photo of the clips
fitted the wrong way round can be seen at
http://shop.wintechracing.co.nz/popup_image.php?pID=138 and an enlarged view
of the clip at
https://store.wintechracing.com/components/com_phpshop/shop_image/product/533f2f121762a78698233d6f3b1725ab.gif.
Please check your boats, and be safe.
--
David Biddulph
Rowing web pages at
http://www.biddulph.org.uk/
Carl Douglas
>
> Please check your boats, and be safe.
Most timely, David & Rachel. Thanks both.
Happily, the sculler was unhurt. But it is sad that we need dramatic
reminders at regular intervals to remember that safety equipment must be
foolproof
All the time folk are evading or fiddling with heel safety. They moan
vacuously about heel restraints being restrictive. In ignorance they
seek to bend or evade rational rules on restraint length (50mm maximum
rise works every time; any more than that gets increasingly dangerous) -
to suit their own ill-informed whims. Few are worse in this than those
who should be protecting others, such as British Rowing with its inane
rule that heels may rise to the level of the lowest shoe-fixing bolt!
And, all the while, rowers & coaches are messing about with shoe laces
&, as here, little bits of disconnectable plastic which subtly invite
opinionated rowers to disengage them when afloat, thus invalidating
event safety checks.
When was a mere shoe lace, for which there are no performance standards,
a fit & proper safety device??
In all this rowers feel entitled to invent trivial reasons to put their
imagined (but bogus) convenience before substantial, proven safety.
It needs to be understood, & it needs regular repetition, that capsizing
in the absence of reliable, tested & trusted passive release for your
feet is one of the most dangerous mishaps a rower is likely to encounter.
That's not going to happen while new boats are supplied with feeble
strands of bow-tied cotton shoe lace chafing in sharp-edged holes &
against thin metal rings. And it's not going to happen until we start
actually disqualifying crews that present boats for safety inspection
with woefully inadequate or absent heel restraints.
I hope this recent even will be a suitable wake-up call on the need for
durable, unfiddlable & proper-length heel restraints.
This is what really works, for each shoe separately:
1. A double length of 3mm diameter (or more) braided nylon cord
2. That cord to be passed through a well-secured ring or other solid
attachment on the shoe heel (or through 2 well-separated holes drilled
in the shoe heel of adjacent shoe sole)
3. Both ends of that cord to pass through a close-fitting hole in the
stretcher board that is set well away from its edge
4. The 2 protruding ends to be tied as one piece in a thumb knot, the
position of which to be set to allow just 50mm/2" maximum clearance
between the stretcher board & the shoe sole at the heel. The knot must
be large enough that it cannot possibly pass back through the hole in
the stretcher
5. Cut off the excess cord about 6mm/0.25" beyond the knot, then heat
those cut ends & that side of the knot in a small flame so that the
surface of the nylon cord fuses & flows sufficiently that, upon
hardening, the knot cannot be undone (do _not_ heat the cord where it
enters the knot!)
6. Finally, apply a goodly dob of Sikaflex (R) or similar 1-pack
elastomeric polyurethane mastic sealing/bonding material to the
shoe-side of the knot & pull the shoe heel up to draw the knot back
against the stretcher board. Insert a piece of packing between the shoe
heel & the stretcher to keep this in position for a few hours until the
mastic has set. And, of course, it helps as a final check if that
packing happens to be about 50mm thick!
That's what works. Now, please, everyone go & do it.
Thanks -
Carl
Cheers -
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Find: http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)
Charles Carroll
The following story is nearly apropos of nothing, but there is something in it that struck me as terribly amusing.
We have a young rowing god who is working this summer at our Club. He has just finished rowing at St. Ignatius High School, and in August will drive across the continent to Ithaca where he has been recruited for the freshman lightweight crew at Cornell. He is a very pleasant young man.
Anyway, he and I were going over Carl’s boat and he was uttering the usual astonishments at how beautiful it is, when suddenly he stopped. He was absolutely transfixed.
“Look at that he said,” he said.
I followed his eyes. They were fixed on the shoes and stretcher.
“I’ve never seen anything like that. That is beautiful!”
My shoes have holes in the toe box. I couldn’t believe he thought the shoes were beautiful.
“What?” I asked.
“Those,” he said.
He pointed to the heel restraints.
“I’ve never seen anything like them. They are magnificent.”
“The heel restraints?”
“Yes! Aren’t they just amazing! I have never seen anything so good.”
“Well, they are very safe. I don’t know any others that are so secure.”
“Oh, they are absolutely beautiful!” he exclaimed.
You could see that he was dead serious.
This young man is somewhere between 17 and 18 years old. Don’t you think it funny that with all the things to notice on Carl’s boat, the thing that caught his eye were the heel restraints? Would you say that he might have the makings of a good coach?
Cordially,
Charles
Richard
> David Biddulph wrote:
> > You may have seen Rachel Quarrel's notice
> > (http://www.rowingservice.com/new.html) about a problem with Wintech heel
> > restraints, where an Evesham sculler capsized and couldn't get her feet out
> > of the shoe because the heel restraint failed at the point where the lace
> > goes into the plastic clip.
>
> > Another problem, encountered more frequently, is that those Wintech heel
> > restraint clips can easily come unclipped from the ring on the heel of the
> > shoe. After some investigation it has been realised that they come
> > unclipped easily if they are fitted with the clip opening pointing towards
> > the shoe, whereas they are much more secure if fitted with the clip opening
> > pointing away from the shoe. The British Rowing water safety adviser took
> > some photos at the weekend, and hopefully these will soon appear on the
> > British Rowing website to give the information to competitors and control
> > commission umpires. EVERY boat that we saw at the weekend fitted with these
> > heel restraints had them fitted the wrong way round. It should be noted
> > that this doesn't just apply to Wintech boats as we found the problem on
> > boats from BBG, Lola and Stampfli, presumably where Wintech shoes had been
> > fitted as replacements for the original equipment. A photo of the clips
> > fitted the wrong way round can be seen at
> > of the clip at
> >https://store.wintechracing.com/components/com_phpshop/shop_image/pro.....
I firmly believe we need to start doing the "safety checks"
differently at events.
Don't do them at the outbound raft where faults are *never* properly
fixed. Do them in the boat park instead. CC umpires should be part
rule enforcer and part educator (well, at least until such time as
more coaches start taking the boat safety part of their role
seriously). Implement the existing rule as it is written (Rule 2-3-8
"Control Commission ... *shall exclude* any boat that fails to meet
the standard laid down."). Keep records of boats that have failed
(every boat at a UK event should now have a unique boat ID). Pass
summaries of those records to the clubs involved (to encourage them to
improve their maintenance standards) and to subsequent events (so
appropriate action can be taken, where necessary, against repeat
offenders). I reckon none of this is difficult to achieve. Every UK
umpire knows full well that the boat that failed at an event last
weekend will get used all week in training in the same poor state, and
will more than likely turn up next weekend with exactly the same
faults / temporary "repairs". And still we choose to do nothing about
it.
PS crews do remember at Control Commission checks that if the Umpire
spots a fault with your boat, it means two things: 1 - that your
boat's faulty, and much more importantly 2 - it means YOU DIDN'T
PREPARE OR CHECK IT PROPERLY in the first place. So don't expect any
sympathy, and definitely don't offer any excuses. I sometimes ask
crews if they've already checked their boats themselves (always an
interesting question to ask), and if so what have they checked and
how, and even get them to demonstrate to me - after all, it's not *me*
who's going to get trapped by *their* faulty heel restraints. At
least that way they start to learn how to do it properly.
PPS I see I have two shifts on CC at HWR this weekend. What fun. ;-)
usbrit
> On 15 June, 12:02, Carl Douglas <c...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > David Biddulph wrote:
> > > You may have seen Rachel Quarrel's notice
> > > (http://www.rowingservice.com/new.html) about a problem with Wintech heel
> > > restraints, where an Evesham sculler capsized and couldn't get her feet out
> > > of the shoe because the heel restraint failed at the point where the lace
> > > goes into the plastic clip.
>
> > > Another problem, encountered more frequently, is that those Wintech heel
> > > restraint clips can easily come unclipped from the ring on the heel of the
> > > shoe. After some investigation it has been realised that they come
> > > unclipped easily if they are fitted with the clip opening pointing towards
> > > the shoe, whereas they are much more secure if fitted with the clip opening
> > > pointing away from the shoe. The British Rowing water safety adviser took
> > > some photos at the weekend, and hopefully these will soon appear on the
> > > British Rowing website to give the information to competitors and control
> > > commission umpires. EVERY boat that we saw at the weekend fitted with these
> > > heel restraints had them fitted the wrong way round. It should be noted
> > > that this doesn't just apply to Wintech boats as we found the problem on
> > > boats from BBG, Lola and Stampfli, presumably where Wintech shoes had been
> > > fitted as replacements for the original equipment. A photo of the clips
> > > fitted the wrong way round can be seen at
>
> - Show quoted text -
Just a thought for what its worth
Perhaps it might be an idea to fine crews who appear at regattas with
faulty equipment. Said fine would be payable to the regatta, not
British Rowing as most regatta finanicially live hand to mouth
Perhaps a monetary disincentive will focus club's minds?
pdb
> David Biddulph wrote:
> > You may have seen Rachel Quarrel's notice
> > (http://www.rowingservice.com/new.html) about a problem with Wintech heel
> > restraints, where an Evesham sculler capsized and couldn't get her feet out
> > of the shoe because the heel restraint failed at the point where the lace
> > goes into the plastic clip.
>
> > Another problem, encountered more frequently, is that those Wintech heel
> > restraint clips can easily come unclipped from the ring on the heel of the
> > shoe. After some investigation it has been realised that they come
> > unclipped easily if they are fitted with the clip opening pointing towards
> > the shoe, whereas they are much more secure if fitted with the clip opening
> > pointing away from the shoe. The British Rowing water safety adviser took
> > some photos at the weekend, and hopefully these will soon appear on the
> > British Rowing website to give the information to competitors and control
> > commission umpires. EVERY boat that we saw at the weekend fitted with these
> > heel restraints had them fitted the wrong way round. It should be noted
> > that this doesn't just apply to Wintech boats as we found the problem on
> > boats from BBG, Lola and Stampfli, presumably where Wintech shoes had been
> > fitted as replacements for the original equipment. A photo of the clips
> > fitted the wrong way round can be seen at
> > of the clip at
> >https://store.wintechracing.com/components/com_phpshop/shop_image/pro.....
> URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk(boats) &www.aerowing.co.uk(riggers)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I spoke to a very experienced school master/coach at Marlow Town
Regatta who said that he now replaces the cord ties with 'cable-ties'
which are robust and easily fixed. They are also relatively cheap and
I am buying a quantity for Marlow Regatta this weekend to get crews
afloat after their heel restraints fail.
This would deal with the Wintech problem - of which I saw at first
hand the very poor design. There is no way they can be considered 'fit
for purpose'.
Often the simplest solution is the best.
pdb
> On 15 June, 12:02, Carl Douglas <c...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > David Biddulph wrote:
> > > You may have seen Rachel Quarrel's notice
> > > (http://www.rowingservice.com/new.html) about a problem with Wintech heel
> > > restraints, where an Evesham sculler capsized and couldn't get her feet out
> > > of the shoe because the heel restraint failed at the point where the lace
> > > goes into the plastic clip.
>
> > > Another problem, encountered more frequently, is that those Wintech heel
> > > restraint clips can easily come unclipped from the ring on the heel of the
> > > shoe. After some investigation it has been realised that they come
> > > unclipped easily if they are fitted with the clip opening pointing towards
> > > the shoe, whereas they are much more secure if fitted with the clip opening
> > > pointing away from the shoe. The British Rowing water safety adviser took
> > > some photos at the weekend, and hopefully these will soon appear on the
> > > British Rowing website to give the information to competitors and control
> > > commission umpires. EVERY boat that we saw at the weekend fitted with these
> > > heel restraints had them fitted the wrong way round. It should be noted
> > > that this doesn't just apply to Wintech boats as we found the problem on
> > > boats from BBG, Lola and Stampfli, presumably where Wintech shoes had been
> > > fitted as replacements for the original equipment. A photo of the clips
> > > fitted the wrong way round can be seen at
>
> - Show quoted text -
Good Luck at HWR Richard but I am not sure the boat park check is the
solution for a well subscribed regatta. I did get this in place at
Dorney for one of HOR events and it saved a lot of congestion and
delay at the rafts.
Christopher Anton
"Richard" <use...@rjpacker.org.uk> wrote in message
news:3b7d8fc7-398a-464f...@5g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
>PPS I see I have two shifts on CC at HWR this weekend. What fun. ;-)
Me too. CC is always fun.
Christopher Anton
"pdb" <pdbl...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:b9a48b6f-5010-4f3c...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>I spoke to a very experienced school master/coach at Marlow Town
>Regatta who said that he now replaces the cord ties with 'cable-ties'
>which are robust and easily fixed. They are also relatively cheap and
>I am buying a quantity for Marlow Regatta this weekend to get crews
>afloat after their heel restraints fail.
It was the solution being utilised at the BR Masters Champs this weekend. It
kept CC very busy. I hadn't realised there were so many WinTech boats in
circulation.
Oarsport
>
>
>
>
>
> > David Biddulph wrote:
> > > You may have seen Rachel Quarrel's notice
> > > (http://www.rowingservice.com/new.html) about a problem with Wintech heel
> > > restraints, where an Evesham sculler capsized and couldn't get her feet out
> > > of the shoe because the heel restraint failed at the point where the lace
> > > goes into the plastic clip.
>
> > > Another problem, encountered more frequently, is that those Wintech heel
> > > restraint clips can easily come unclipped from the ring on the heel of the
> > > shoe. After some investigation it has been realised that they come
> > > unclipped easily if they are fitted with the clip opening pointing towards
> > > the shoe, whereas they are much more secure if fitted with the clip opening
> > > pointing away from the shoe. The British Rowing water safety adviser took
> > > some photos at the weekend, and hopefully these will soon appear on the
> > > British Rowing website to give the information to competitors and control
> > > commission umpires. EVERY boat that we saw at the weekend fitted with these
> > > heel restraints had them fitted the wrong way round. It should be noted
> > > that this doesn't just apply to Wintech boats as we found the problem on
> > > boats from BBG, Lola and Stampfli, presumably where Wintech shoes had been
> > > fitted as replacements for the original equipment. A photo of the clips
> > > fitted the wrong way round can be seen at
Richard,
Whilst it seems to be already quite widely publicised, I have asked
for a notice regarding this issue to be posted on the HWR website in
an effort that competitors and coaches are forewarned and perform the
necessary modification BEFORE they reach the rafts and CC. To address
immediate concerns, we are suggesting using plastic cable ties (we are
supplying 4mm width) as an additional or replacement restraint whilst
we work with WinTech to look at other options for standard supply long
term. There will be several WinTech boats in use this weekend at both
HWR and Marlow. We will supply plentiful cable ties to both regattas
for WinTech users to do the necessary. As I will be at HWR with the
Oarsport Oar Repair Trailer, I will give the registration tent a
supply as well as holding more at our trailer where they will be
freely available and I will also run foot patrols in the boat rack
area advising and supplying our WinTech customers before they reach
CC. Russ Thatcher will be operating his "Oar Doctor" service at
Marlow regatta. I will get a supply to him for that event. So,
hopefully your stints on CC will be made a little easier this weekend
with all WinTech boats meeting CC checks before you see them
hopefully! At HWR we will also have spare bow balls and number slots
available from the trailer, and of course with almost everything to
keep oars in good condition and service too.
In addition, we are writing to every WinTech boat and shoe customer
since the introduction of these restraints at the end of 2005 and
include enough free cable ties for the shoe count. Of course,
distribution in this way will take a little longer to filter through
and then be actioned but a telephone call to us now will get immediate
and direct supply.
Hopefully this will prevent what I saw at the Loughborough and BR
Masters regattas in Nottingham last weekend where I spent some time
helping customers change to the cable tie. I saw many of the WinTech
restraints discarded in the bins (all I checked were in good working
order) but in some cases, next to them were empty packets of cheap
shoe laces probably bought from the corner shop up the road and used
as replacement restraints and passed by CC. How can the CC umpires
and the user possibly know the breaking strain of these laces or the
elasticity once soaking wet? My point being that on sight of a
WinTech, people have been panicked into using something else that
might pass the "sharp tug" test and be "adequate" and "effective" but
not really be just that as there appear to be no other or detailed
official guidelines i.e. what really is the definition of adequate and
effective? And, in haste, would a poorly tied knot (we're not all
Scouts or Guides) pass the tug test but fail in the possible panic of
a capsize? I did ask an umpire what the BR recommended breaking
strain is for a restraint and the answer was "there isn't one", but I
had a hunch that would be the answer having tried to find any
reference to it.
I'm sure Carl you have asked most if not all these questions yourself
and you may be able to correct me here, but I guess there has been no
official research/testing into breaking strain and forces applied in
the event of a panicked capsize which clearly isn't the way forward if
the rule is to be really taken seriously and enforced, and not just at
regattas in the summer months.
Andrew Wilson.
Oarsport Ltd.
anatol...@abdm.co.uk
clips can also result in shell damage if fitted correctly. We were
supplied with several smaller Janousek boats fitted with these heel
restraint clips. When the shoes are adjusted to a lower setting in the
boat, a rower can grind them between the shell and the heel on every
stroke resulting in damage to the shell and broken clips.
These clips are probably just a 'stock' plastic clip and are clearly
not designed for purpose. I believe that should be replaced at the
soonest opportunity.
Anatole
P.s. Just one more thing. Using cable ties instead of the 'shoelace'
can be unwise, as the cable ties whilst strong, have a tendency to
close up, and you find the shoe heels securely fastened ... right at
the bottom of the boat!
Henry Law
> but I guess there has been no
> official research/testing into breaking strain and forces applied in
> the event of a panicked capsize
No, I expect you're right. But I can attest to the fact that they are
considerable. I documented a pair capsize a number of years ago: in
that one my partner snapped the foot plate in half while freeing a stuck
foot. And I think I remember reading recently of someone else whose
footplate suffered in a similar way.
--
Henry Law Manchester, England
Carl Douglas
I agree here that having lumps of moulded plastic set in the heel tie in
such a way that they may get between stretcher & boat or heel & boat are
a real hazard to the hull of the boat.
This episode is a handy reminder of the so-called "law of unintended
consequences". Those trying to re-invent wheels, or provide existing
wheels with fancy go-faster trim, need to consider with great care how
their bright ideas may be misunderstood, misused or malfunction.
Especially in safety kit.
Now to cable ties:
To have them progressively shortening (if they do) is certainly not a
health hazard. Nor does it endanger a rower's survival.
Take care that you do not, again, find yourselves fitting something
which appears at first sight to be a panacea but which, unlike my
earlier & detailed advice on heel restraint fitment, is far from proven
fit for the task. I know of no similar safety application in which
cable ties are certified fit for such a purpose. It would be most
unfortunate were this latest quick fix, which lacks any sense of
permanence & has zero long-term testing to support it, to fail & thus to
kill.
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
Andy McKenzie
> URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk(boats) &www.aerowing.co.uk(riggers)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
i have had some bad experiences with trying to use cable ties for load
bearing - you are at the mercy of slipping 'ratchets', and any nick in
the tie will propagate rapidly to failure. As far as I can see from
the web a 4mm cable tie has a breaking strain of about 20 kgs, whereas
3mm cord (at least the stuff climbers use) can be over 150kg. Logic
would say that as (or if?) you can stand on your toes on one foot your
foot can exert at least a force equivalent to your weight, or 3 or 4
times the breaking strain of a tie.. obviously logic is as poor
substitute for tests! i haven't found any web measurements of standard
shoelaces - but given how I can snap mine without even trying after a
few months wear and tear i wouldn't put a lot of faith in them,
although there are adverts for Kevlar reinforced hiking laces with 200
kg breaking points.
Andy
Carl Douglas
> On Jun 15, 7:19 pm, Richard <use...@rjpacker.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 15 June, 12:02, Carl Douglas <c...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I'm sure Carl you have asked most if not all these questions yourself
> and you may be able to correct me here, but I guess there has been no
> official research/testing into breaking strain and forces applied in
> the event of a panicked capsize which clearly isn't the way forward if
> the rule is to be really taken seriously and enforced, and not just at
> regattas in the summer months.
>
> Andrew Wilson.
> Oarsport Ltd.
Hi Andrew -
Official research! I'm afraid you have to be joking. As you know,
rowing does not do safety research.
Indeed, rowing's administrators are so ignorant on & averse to safety
matters that, I am given to understand, a very senior & deeply foolish
member of the British Rowing exec has just vetoed a serious proposal by
the BR's own safety advisor that he might provide a technical framework
that would allow clubs to assess the flotation compliance of rowing shells.
Similarly, I hear that BR remains unclear on what it to do in the matter
of impact protection for rowers against the new trend for vertical bows
versus that for the classic pointed bow. Since they do nothing
meaningful about pointed bow protection, one has to wonder why this is
of the slightest concern within the ivory tower, but let that pass for
now. Apparently they can't determine the scale of the relative demerits
of spreading the same impact energy over a larger area of the human body
(via the vertical bow) or limiting it to a much smaller area (as when
the typical defective bow ball lets the reinforced point spear the
recipient).
That this is a matter of relatively straightforward engineering science
does not, as usual, intrude upon such deliberations. Those of us with
some engineering knowledge, & those who build shells & sometimes get to
repair them, can confirm that until energy levels rise well beyond those
typically encountered in rowing collisions an impact by pointed object
is far more likely to deeply perforate a structure than a similar impact
by a more-extensive impactor such as a vertical bow. What's being
missed is that the wider the impact area, the lower the impact loadings
the less the relative movement of any part of what it hits, the further
the resulting stresses are from ultimate fracture loadings & the less
energy is concentrated upon any part of the affected area. Local injury
& penetration is strongly dependent upon the impact energy per unit area
of the target & points are the best concentrators of energy, which is
why spears are sharp-tipped. This is, of course, also the basis for
means of personal protection - even the bow ball. The bow ball spreads
the impact over a bit more of the target & - if & only if it stays put -
converts the pointed bow from a skewer into a blunt object, much
reducing the chance of penetration of vital organs or the severing of
the spinal column with possibly catastrophic effect.
So to your question, at last:
The load applied to a heel restraint in an emergency depends entirely on
how tightly the foot is held in the shoe.
How tight the foot is in the shoe depends on 2 things:
1. How tightly the foot is laced or held into the shoe. This can be a
real problem, since some rowers obsess about not having their feet loose
in their shoes & will strap themselves in ridiculously tight. This
calls for both education & policing - no rower needs their feet to be
tight in the shoe.
2. How much the shoe heel can rise before the restraint tightens. The
problem here is that, as the heel rises, the shoe sole curves around a
larger effective radius than do the bones of the foot. The foot bones
are incompressible & the shoe sole is inextensible. As the heel rises,
the increased curvature of both items results in the shoe's heel
seemingly shortening up against the foot & tightening up against the
rower's heel. If the foot is a snug fit in the shoe, a heel rise of
>50mm/2" starts having a marked effect (the heel restraint acts in the
same way as when with one foot you hold down a heel to kick off the
other shoe, & we know how much harder it is to remove a tight-fitting
shoe in this way).
So you understand both why shoes should not be tightly fitting or
fastened, & why there should be a maximum of 50mm heel rise. ican do
nothing for those who either remove their heel ties or set them at
excessive length - unless ignorant, they deserve what's coming to them.
But if a rower is going to act the (uninformed) fool by
over-tightening the straps or laces, they don't deserve to die.
Which takes us to the load capacity of the heel restraint. If the shoes
are an easy fit, not overtightened & the restraints allow no more than
50mm rise, then you still need to allow for the unexpected. A panicking
rower can exert a mighty force, probably well over 100kgf in extremis.
You must also give good allowance for wear & tear of the heel restraint.
And, finally, the restraint must not be the first thing to break!
Here are some numbers from one supplier - I can't vouch for them but
they're of the right order:
Diam of braided nylon cord (mm) Breaking load when new (kg force)
2 100
3 180
4 340
Allow at least a 3x safety factor, so a 2mm nylon cord might not break
before 35 kgf, while our recommended 4mm cord will hold >100kg in a
single strand & twice that when doubled as we advise. Better safe than
sorry, & it weighs virtually nothing! That breaking strain will keep
you safe, even if you have neglected your stretcher fittings.
I have no figures for cotton or polyester shoe lace strengths, nor how
they fare over time. But we all know they're not remotely fit to be
entrusted with even the worst rower's life.
Next consider the stretcher itself. What load can it take? IMO if the
stretcher breaks it was crap to start with.
Richard du P
of "British Rowing" SHOULD carry unique identifiers. I've so far found
four boats racing this spring and summer which hadn't ..... a coxed
four from an Upper Thames club, which said it had walked into a
builder and bought the ten-grand boat off the shelf, but was finding
the index sticker much harder to procure ..... another from the host
club at a Thames regatta, who'd managed to bypass control commission
with a new unmarked boat ..... a London schoolgirl coxed quad still
bearing the colours and identification of the upper Thames club which
owned it last year ..... and a new single sculler whose willing and
polite young competitor didn't seem quite sure who the boat belonged
to.
I now do what I should have been doing before, which is make sure that
the Regional Umpires Commission is aware of those.
No doubt either that umpires "shall exclude" unfit boats. Possibly
worth noting [if my experience can be generalised] that juniors and
novices are disproportionately the crews concerned ..... anyone out
there share my feeling, that a school's second J14 octuple is
particularly likely to be [a] the club's oldest VIII and [b] not in
the pink of condition? Until I'm directed otherwise, I'll still
encourage them to rectify a fault ..... good though it would be for
their mentors, to face summary disqualification, I think not so good
for the young people involved?
Two cameos in almost direct succession from a very recent regatta, not
a million miles from where Carl is sitting, and involving local
clubs .....
WJ double, possibly in greenish colours, EACH of whose two left heel
ties I broke with a pensioner's tug ..... followed by a strongish
tirade by someone quite a lot older even than I, about the
unreasonable force which I'd been reported to him as using .....
followed, to be fair, by a full and handsome apology from another
member of that club
WN VIII, possibly in rather redder colours, with at least one heel
restraint totally absent ..... here again I asked for the fault to be
rectified, and got shouted at for denying these ladies [who had boated
at the last minute] the chance to compete in their first ever
race ..... again, someone else apologised very decently.
That VIII didn't miss their race - when they'd launched their boat,
they discovered belatedly why their riggers carried different numbers
of tape markers, varying from 1 to 8. They obtained a postponement,
while they brought the boat out and re-rigged it.
My point in all that, should be too obvious to need making. We, the
officers and mature members of clubs and schools, are routinely
throwing novices and young people into conflict with the umpires who
are charged with promoting safe practice. Morally reprehensible and
very bad for the sport, or what?
PS - two college VIIIs in immediate succession, from the same VERY
ancient English university [actually one of them my college, and they
share a boathouse] at a spring head this year; quite clearly no-one in
either crew had ever "half-turned" a boat for inspection ..... "we
always do the inspection with the boat on the water" ..... is that
satisfactory?
Richard du P
Dave Sill
I've resolved to that for our club. I'm a little unclear on how the cord
is attached, though. Does it loop through the shoe? Do you have any
pictures?
-Dave
Richard
> Richard is of course right, that all boats afloat under the auspices
> of "British Rowing" SHOULD carry unique identifiers. I've so far found
> four boats racing this spring and summer which hadn't ..... a coxed
> four from an Upper Thames club, which said it had walked into a
> builder and bought the ten-grand boat off the shelf, but was finding
> the index sticker much harder to procure
Sigh. Let's see if we can help this club. 5 minutes with Google
(search for "self-adhesive letters") and I found www.letteringdirect.com
who will produce a BR-compliant boat ID for £3.90 (per ID). So that's
less than a tenner per boat - one-thousandth of the price of the boat
in this case. I imagine if I'd spent 10 minutes on Google I could
have found any number of other suppliers, and managed to save a quid
or two as well.
Carl Douglas
Hi Dave -
It all depends on the shoe. Some come with pretty robust metal rings
which are adequately riveted to the shoe heel, while there are others
you wouldn't trust at all.
If the shoes you have are in the 2nd category, then drill a pair of
comfortably-separated holes either into the heel cup of the shoe (low
down, but not right next to the sole) or up through the sole relatively
close to the heel end.
Drill the holes ~5mm/3/16" diameter or a tad bigger, & tease out a
melted end on the nylon cord (gently pull an end of the cord while
heating carefully in a small flame just beyond where you're pulling
from, so that the cord softens, extends & sets, then if it doesn't break
off you can cut it to leave a thinner, harder end which you can thread
through all the holes. (We're all grown-ups here, so I'll omit the H&S
warnings about molten nylon on skin.)
If you need more, please let me know.
Charles Carroll
Wouldn't it be easy to do away with heel restraints (really heel safety releases)?
Just use clogs!
If shoes can be designed to fit existing stretchers, why can't some clever engineer design a pair of clogs to fit these same stretchers?
Would it be so difficult to program a machine to cut out clogs in specific sizes and even shape these clogs to fit specific feet?
Clogs would wear much better than shoes, wouldn't they? And certainly clogs would be more hygienic.
Cordially,
Charles
pdb
wrote:
I agree and have them in my boat but I am sure others prefer to use
modern equipment not 'old-fashioned'. I am sure Carl will have an
erudite comment on this.
Carl Douglas
Remember the newspaper columnist, William Connor, who described the
intellect of another person with the immortal words, "The man who think
Erudite means glue"? How careful one has to be!
Yup, I'm for clogs too. But they're far too simple, light, convenient,
adjustable, durable, effective - & safe - for any rower to want them.
:(
usbrit
Nicko Dalton, one time member of Quintin and latterly Molesey, is the
man for numbers, names etc
Carl Douglas
A most depressing picture, Richard. Those twerps' abusive & devious
conduct is crude thuggery. It sends a foul, unsporting message to the
rowers in their charge, & beyond. Do they act thus when away from the
river? Don't child protection rules suggest that no one given to such
abusive outbursts should be coaching juniors?
I'd presume that their concern to have their own way included an
intention to bully you into ignoring the near-certainty that their crews
had been training in that defective equipment for quite some time
previously.
As for the college crews - what do they have instead of brains?
Carl
PS Interestingly (to me), someone recently said to me they'd never known
a boat not bob up to the surface after losing its crew, the implication
being that flotation was therefore a fuss about nothing. I think they
better understand now the value of shell buoyancy, but it is a bit
worrying that no one had explained to this intelligent person (who has a
long involvement in the sport) that flotation was needed because
unintended swimming could have serious adverse consequences.
C
Carl Douglas
>
> i have had some bad experiences with trying to use cable ties for load
> bearing - you are at the mercy of slipping 'ratchets', and any nick in
> the tie will propagate rapidly to failure. As far as I can see from
> the web a 4mm cable tie has a breaking strain of about 20 kgs, whereas
> 3mm cord (at least the stuff climbers use) can be over 150kg. Logic
> would say that as (or if?) you can stand on your toes on one foot your
> foot can exert at least a force equivalent to your weight, or 3 or 4
> times the breaking strain of a tie.. obviously logic is as poor
> substitute for tests! i haven't found any web measurements of standard
> shoelaces - but given how I can snap mine without even trying after a
> few months wear and tear i wouldn't put a lot of faith in them,
> although there are adverts for Kevlar reinforced hiking laces with 200
> kg breaking points.
>
> Andy
Today (Friday) I had occasion to put cable ties to a modest test.
As a result, I agree entirely with Andy. Cable ties are totally unfit
for use as heel restraint replacement.
We were loading a boat under the roof of a 40 tonne truck's trailer, for
shipment across the N. Sea. We use cable ties for initial fixing inside
the truck of the brackets that carry the boats. Twice during this
process I very easily broke ~4mm wide cable ties while trying to tighten
them by hand.
I am now most alarmed that this sudden fashion for replacing worn heel
restraints with cable ties may seriously reduce rowing safety. And I
would note that the cable ties typically used as replacements for heel
restraint are likely to be smaller & weaker than those I so easily broke.
So, again, may I now all safety officers to desist from applying or
accepting the suddenly popular cable tie fix. It is not remotely fit
for purpose.
Thanks -
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
Peter D Blaseby
> URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk(boats) &www.aerowing.co.uk(riggers)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks Carl, now that cable ties are shown to be unsatisfactory as a
short-term solution, is there a proven alternative? I have always
asked crew memberss or the coach to take out a shoelace when the heel
restraints fail when being tested by an umpire.
There have been some new 'restraints' which have appalled me. As an
engineerI I am not convinced by thin plastic of unknown provenance or
by the 'wintech' clips. Perhaps this this exchange will be seen by
members of the BR Competition Committee and the Safety Adviser who
should be proactive in ensuring that clubs and officials get sound
guidance.
Of course we both agree that 'clogs' are the safe solution so there is
a marketing opportunity for an enterprising equipment manufacturere/
supplier.
Henry Law
> On Jun 19, 12:51 am, Carl Douglas<c...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Today (Friday) I had occasion to put cable ties to a modest test.
>>
>> As a result, I agree entirely with Andy. Cable ties are totally unfit
>> for use as heel restraint replacement.
>
> short-term solution, is there a proven alternative? I have always
> asked crew memberss or the coach to take out a shoelace when the heel
> restraints fail when being tested by an umpire.
Excellent work. But (sigh) shouldn't we be preaching the old old gospel
Keep It Simple, Stupid?
Nylon cord: easily obtained, very strong, doesn't rot, not expensive.
The only reason people use laces is that there are always manky ones
lying around; and their mankiness -- which is the reason for their
lying-around-ness -- is the very thing that makes them life-threatening.
If nylon cord were "lying around" then people would use it.
I know: get BR to send out a couple of feet with each copy of the next
issue of Regatta.
Carl Douglas
Not a bad suggestion, Henry. But the real problem is that some clubs,
rowers & coaches are slow learners.
You probably wouldn't turn up to race in an eight with only 7 riggers,
seats or stretchers, & then ask for time to fabricate the missing item
from bits of old boat rack. That's because those are faults in the
"Bleedin' Obvious" category, as in the Cooke & Moore sketch of the
1-legged actor auditioning to act Tarzan.
Rowing with such basic equipment missing may make you lose a race but
will not cause death - except from laughing. But it's easy to neglect
safety kit since, like the man falling from a skyscraper, everything
seems OK until the instant of terminal impact. So it takes a slightly
higher level of intellect to ensure that the minimal demands of
equipment safety are satisfactorily met. Pompous, petty-minded folk who
consider this an imposition are also the sort who make stupid scenes
when an enfeebled old scrote (no names here!) proves strong enough to
rip apart whatever crappy lash-up they'd hoped to slide past official
scrutiny.
I fear that immediate exclusion of boats which fail inspection is the
only way to ensure that safety requirements are properly met. Even
then, I bet sales of bow balls & nylon cord will rise at the start of
each racing season.
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
Peter D Blaseby
> URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk(boats) &www.aerowing.co.uk(riggers)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
So, it is not just at a regatta that heel restraints and Bow-balls
should be checked, Why do coaches not get their crews to check the
safety kit before every outing. In the old days we used to call off
from Bow when we had adjusted our stretchers - with clogs - so why not
today with shoes and heel restraints.
I don't want to restart the debate BUT lessons are NOT being learnt.
i.e. an American crew at Marlow Regatta borrowed a boat with 6 missing
hatch-covers. A temporary solution was implemented and then some
borrowed covers were fixed. My question is 'why did the club lend a
defective boat?' It was the vigilance of the umpire which identified
the problem and the crew was lucky to find something suitable so they
could race.
Let's noy kid ourselves, YOU CANNOT RELAX where Safety is concerned.
John E
provide two sets of heel restraints (with instructions attached) so
that the spare pairs end up around the boathouse. Hopefully this will
stop people using shoelaces, which are totally inappropriate.
The ties are rock climbing accessory cord which is ideal as it is
tough, abrasion resistant but ties well. We use ‘Beal 3mm accessory
cord’, but there are others.
A quick look online shows various people who sell it in small
quantities, eg:
www.proadventureshop.co.uk/acatalog/Beal_3mm_Climbing_Accessory_Cord_per_metre_off_the_roll857.html
+ the shoes are here:
www.active-tools.com/Products.aspx?Cid=ab317b3d-172c-43f2-972d-3a4752111da3
Richard du P
...........................
> I don't want to restart the debate ..........
But Peter, it's your sacred duty. Until a few minutes ago, I sincerely
believed that at least we were making some progress with boats
presented to race - that we've come some way from the boat offered one
summer a few years ago at Thames regattas by a "Russell Group"
university ..... with most of its hatch covers missing.
Now, I'm not so sure even of that.
The US crew you mention, did it make a payment or donation for the use
of that boat? If so, was that a pricking of the ears from Messrs Sue,
Grabbit and Runne that I just heard?
The real horror story, as you point out, could be the state of
equipment used, sometimes alone on the river, outside competition. I
never got an answer to this one ..... Why don't we have Peer Review? -
two separate neighbour clubs [two big ones at Putney to show us the
way?] taking a weekend to check each other's fleet?
- of course you could try telling me that each club, club officer and
competitor already has a clear duty to make sure the kit is fit for
purpose.
Nurse, I think I need a bowl.
Richard du P
Henry Law
> What we have done with our new adjustable length rowing shoes is to
> provide two sets of heel restraints (with instructions attached) so
> that the spare pairs end up around the boathouse. Hopefully this will
> stop people using shoelaces, which are totally inappropriate.
We've got a pair of these and as I installed them I marvelled at the
quality of the restraint cord!
I commend you for supplying two sets but I don't think that's enough.
Boathouses -- as I'm sure you know -- are used by everybody and cared
for by nobody. There may be some of my clubmates who know where to find
stuff in our boathouse but I'm not sure who they are; the remainder (see
earlier comments on people's totaly failure to take safety equipment
seriously) will simply bodge whatever they can from whatever they can,
or in the case of missing heel restraints not bother at all.
Although there was a certain levity in my earlier comment about
supplying nylon cord with "Regatta" my point was serious. The way to get
safety to stick is to make the safe way the path of least resistance.
So good quality heel cord -- yours or any other -- has to be easier to
get hold of and use in the boathouse, on a cold dank morning, than manky
shoelaces.
Andy McKenzie
A concerned club might invest the £21.46 it would cost to buy 60
metres of decent cord in bulk (or the 30p a metre if you are a bit
cash strapped) Search the web for 'beal 3mm cord'. Of course my new
enterprise will sell you special rowing cord, which looks just like
the climbing cord, but is deionized, copper free and uses a special
round cross section for lowered wind resistance and, under the right
circumstances can make the difference between winning or losing at a
mere £5 a metre.
Andy
(The right circumstances being sneakily tying your oppo to the start)
pdb
>
> - Show quoted text -
On a risk reduction basis, what is against the 'old-fashioned' clog?
Free-to-air ventilattion, one size fits all - especially important for
boats which are used by all club members,
Robust - they can easily be repaired with new leather tops
Ideal for steering mechanism attachment
Cheaper than branded shoes
etc.
Very seriously, club boats with the wrong size shoes are very
dangerous when a size 10 foot is squeezed into a size 8 shoe. The heel-
restraint will not help emergency extraction when the back of the shoe
is tight against the heel. Incidentally, it as lot easier to get you
feet in and adjusted with clogs than shoes, even if they are the right
size..
Henry Law
>
> On a risk reduction basis, what is against the 'old-fashioned' clog?
There must be something against clogs because nobody -- aside from
training boats perhaps -- uses them. It's a complete mystery to me. I
suspect very much that your question contains its own answer:
"old-fashioned".
The arguments in favour of clogs are to do with safety, hygiene, economy
and longevity: all outmoded concepts in C21.
Kit
> On 23/06/10 13:11, pdb wrote:
>
>
>
> > On a risk reduction basis, what is against the 'old-fashioned' clog?
>
> There must be something against clogs because nobody -- aside from
> training boats perhaps -- uses them.
... in the UK. I believe elsewhere (eg Aus) they are still used
widely.
It's a complete mystery to me. I
> suspect very much that your question contains its own answer:
> "old-fashioned".
>
> The arguments in favour of clogs are to do with safety, hygiene, economy
> and longevity: all outmoded concepts in C21.
>
> --
>
> Henry Law Manchester, England
I learnt in clogs. Maybe it was the particular models we had, but I
remember a tendency for the balls of the feet to slip slightly
downwards when the weight is over the feet at the catch, which led to
heels landing on the cups.
Personally I prefer shoes, but I am sure there are other options as
well besides these 2. This has been discussed before, but I still
think an adaptation of the shoe clips found on C2 ergs is possible,
that would allow ones own shoes to be used, but would come away from
the stretcher in an emergency.
Charles Carroll
> think an adaptation of the shoe clips found on C2 ergs is possible,
> that would allow ones own shoes to be used, but would come away from
> the stretcher in an emergency.
I could not agree more. I have thought many times about fastening the shoe clips found on C2 ergs to the stretcher on my boat.
Cordially,
Charles
John E
> I could not agree more. I have thought many times about fastening the shoe clips found on C2 ergs to the stretcher on my boat.
Shroeder make a C2 type device, which I believe has provision for heel
restraints:
www.schroederrowing.de/html/stemmbretter.html
People also adapt C2 ones by adding home-made heel restraints but both
designs have the disadvantages that you tread dirt into the boat and
are not well connected.
My memories of starting rowing with clogs are not great. I remember my
feet sliding around and my heels rising up on top of the brass heel
cups. When we were developing our adjustable length shoes I asked two
people in my club who had boats with clogs in them what they felt
about them and they both said that they prefered shoes and just kept
clogs because they fitted in with the style of their boats.
We sometimes describe our new shoes as 'modern day clogs' as they
adjust in size and are completely hygienic. If any coach or 'club
officer' in the USA or UK would like to try a pair we are still
offering one pair per club at $30/£20. If interested you can email us
at in...@active-tools.com
pdb
> On 23 June, 15:06, Henry Law <n...@lawshouse.org> wrote:
>
> > On 23/06/10 13:11, pdb wrote:
>
> > > On a risk reduction basis, what is against the 'old-fashioned' clog?
>
> > There must be something against clogs because nobody -- aside from
> > training boats perhaps -- uses them.
>
> ... in the UK. I believe elsewhere (eg Aus) they are still used
> widely.
>
> It's a complete mystery to me. I
>
> > suspect very much that your question contains its own answer:
> > "old-fashioned".
>
> > The arguments in favour of clogs are to do with safety, hygiene, economy
> > and longevity: all outmoded concepts in C21.
>
> > --
>
> > Henry Law Manchester, England
>
> I learnt in clogs. Maybe it was the particular models we had, but I
> remember a tendency for the balls of the feet to slip slightly
> downwards when the weight is over the feet at the catch, which led to
> heels landing on the cups.
>
>
I am sure that a non-slip surface could be applied to reduce the
slipping, or just abrading the surface as it gets polished with time.
One training exercise I remember well was 'feet out' rowing. Fantastic
because it prevented 'pulling yourself forward' and encouraged the
'hands away' momentum allied to the slight downhill slide bed to bring
you forward. This reduced the 'check' and maintained more boat
speed.
Incidentally, I now realise why I hate 'ergoing' so much - I ache in
places I never do in a boat which must be due to the lack of boat
momentum.
Yes, you can do this by undoing the shoes but with clogs it can be
achieved without stopping. It must improve boat-moving skills.
Another good reason to return to basics - and help to make boats safer
and reduce the need for 'blazerati' to act as safety enforcers.
Kit
wrote:
Charles,
I think you need to consider what happens if you turn over though. As
they stand, current C2 shoe clips would be unsafe as they lock your
shoes so hard into them that it's difficult enough getting your feet
out of them even dry & upright on an erg. Doing it under water is
impossible and your feet certainly wouldn't free themselves.
In fact, the most important part to release is the top part of the
foot. After that the heels just come out of the heel cups by
themselves. At the moment, the C2 clips strap the top part of the foot
down really hard & fast, but in a boat do they need to be? Consider
when you do feet-out rowing, you actually pull your feet towards you
using the heel cups anyway. So in principle, the top part of the foot
does not need to be tied down that hard. Maybe a simple velcro-
fastened strap would be enough. With the right area of velcro, it
should give under high tension in a capsize, but hold during normal
rowing.
Just a thought.
Kit
Carl Douglas
> On Jun 23, 3:58 pm, Kit <davies....@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On 23 June, 15:06, Henry Law <n...@lawshouse.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 23/06/10 13:11, pdb wrote:
>>>> On a risk reduction basis, what is against the 'old-fashioned' clog?
>>> There must be something against clogs because nobody -- aside from
>>> training boats perhaps -- uses them.
>> ... in the UK. I believe elsewhere (eg Aus) they are still used
>> widely.
>>
>> It's a complete mystery to me. I
>>
>>> suspect very much that your question contains its own answer:
>>> "old-fashioned".
>>> The arguments in favour of clogs are to do with safety, hygiene, economy
>>> and longevity: all outmoded concepts in C21.
>>> --
>>> Henry Law Manchester, England
>> I learnt in clogs. Maybe it was the particular models we had, but I
>> remember a tendency for the balls of the feet to slip slightly
>> downwards when the weight is over the feet at the catch, which led to
>> heels landing on the cups.
>>
>>
>
> I am sure that a non-slip surface could be applied to reduce the
> slipping, or just abrading the surface as it gets polished with time.
The only problems were that stretchers with clogs were built
unadjustable for rake & the heel traps were fairly unsophisticated.
neither of those would be seen as insuperable manufacturing obstacles
today, but nor were they a source of complaint then.
>
> One training exercise I remember well was 'feet out' rowing. Fantastic
> because it prevented 'pulling yourself forward' and encouraged the
> 'hands away' momentum allied to the slight downhill slide bed to bring
> you forward. This reduced the 'check' and maintained more boat
> speed.
Oh dear! That's an old saw on which we're bound to disagree, Peter.
Unless by 'feet out' you also mean 'heels out', the angle of engagement
between heel of shoe or clog was & is amply steep to ensure that you can
pull yourself forward - there is always some downwards pressure at the
heels or you'd roll over backwards, & that downward pressure maintains
the engagement needed to pull you along the slide.
And, of course, you'd never get to front-stops if you did'nt pull on the
feet, since the tendency of a body (yours) to sustain its original
forward velocity is more than enough otherwise to keep you at backstops
with the fluid drag causing the boat (& you) to slow down.
>
> Incidentally, I now realise why I hate 'ergoing' so much - I ache in
> places I never do in a boat which must be due to the lack of boat
> momentum.
That, as you suggest, is due to the very great differences in the
dynamics at catch & finish. On an erg catch you have first to soak up
your body's sternwards momentum & energy before you can reverse the
movement of your shoulders enough to be able to take the catch.
>
> Yes, you can do this by undoing the shoes but with clogs it can be
> achieved without stopping. It must improve boat-moving skills.
>
> Another good reason to return to basics - and help to make boats safer
> and reduce the need for 'blazerati' to act as safety enforcers.
Well, that would be good!
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
pdb
>
> Oh dear! That's an old saw on which we're bound to disagree, Peter.
>
> Unless by 'feet out' you also mean 'heels out', the angle of engagement
> between heel of shoe or clog was & is amply steep to ensure that you can
> pull yourself forward - there is always some downwards pressure at the
> heels or you'd roll over backwards, & that downward pressure maintains
> the engagement needed to pull you along the slide.
>
> And, of course, you'd never get to front-stops if you did'nt pull on the
> feet, since the tendency of a body (yours) to sustain its original
> forward velocity is more than enough otherwise to keep you at backstops
> with the fluid drag causing the boat (& you) to slow down.
>
Of course the heels have to rise - the flat-footed are inflexible and
unable to 'spring' off the stretcher. Incidentally, when I started
clogs were a luxury, it was mostly foot plates and straps!
Of course the less experienced found it difficult not to fall
backwards at the finish but we soon learnt to stay upright, get
forward and get a good beginning. Eventually we were moving nearly as
quickly as before - good technique is at least as important as raw
power. Those who can pull a good ergo don't necessarily become
effective boat-movers.
Ultimately when we put our feet back in we were faster than before.
MagnusBurbanks
I'd paraphrase it here, unfortunaetly I don't have the time, but I do
talk about it at length here:
http://www.slidingseat.net/accel/accel.html#fixedheadVSscull
Although my approach is somewhat technical, I have attempted to make
the commentary readily comprehensible to a rower.
Magnus
pdb
wrote:
Thank you, the detail is more than I can digest but my lack of
pleasure on an ergo has been explained. In my single or crew boats I
just enjoy the satisfaction of a boat with 'run' which enbables me to
apply my, now rather limited, power to maximum advantage.