First row in Fluidesign
Sue Thomas
I picked up my new Fluidesign boat last Saturday and finally had opportunity
to row it today. It's a little disconcerting to have a bow-mounted rigger,
but aside from that I have to say I am impressed with the boat.
Gord has introduced some interesting features, which make the rigging
extremely adaptable and easy to adjust, no tools required.
The rigger itself bolts in using just two thumbscrews, which are mounted
horizontally instead of vertically. It took me just about a minute to put
the rigger on, with no tools required. Gotta like that.
The footstretchers were very easy to move, both forward and back, angle and
height. The forward and back is accomplished with two wing nuts through a
plate attached to the hull and another wing nut attached to a notched track
on the bottom of the boat. The angle is easily changed by loosening one
wing nut near the top centre of the footstretcher, and the same wing nut nut
on the notched track you use to move the footstretcher front/back. You can
move the footstretcher to whatever angle you wish.
And the height of the feet is easily changed with two other wing nuts on the
footstretcher. Again, no tools required. I loved the ease of use!
One thing I'm not sure about is the shoes seem to be permanently attached to
the footstretcher -- I sometimes find I like to adjust the toe in/out a bit
for a sore knee. We'll see how this goes though.
Once I had the boat rigged for me I set off in the sunshine. I found the
amount of run I got from the boat impressive. I was rowing only 18 spm and
boat had a great deal of run, certainly more than I've gotten from my old
Pocock or the newer Pococks at the club. And better than the Hudsons I've
rowed.
After I got familiar with the boat I did a few pressure pieces and then a
few starts. I gotta say the starts were impressive. It felt solid and
fast. The stiffness of the boat seems to make a big difference here. I
didn't feel my power was being absorbed by the boat, but was being
transferred directly to the blades. It picked up very quickly.
Even though the water was 48 F there was a water skier out today and for the
first time I found the resulting boat chop not too frustrating. The boat
was extremely stable.
My only frustration was lifting the boat out of the water and putting it
away! The rigger is in the wrong spot and it hit my legs a couple of times.
And getting in and out of the boat is a little different as the seat is
between the seat and rigger.
One thing I started wondering about ... the different motion of the gates.
For instance, the starboard gate moves from about the 10 oclock position at
the catch to the 2 oclock position at the finish, unlike a stern mounted
rigger where the gate would move from about 10 oclock through to about 8
oclock. With the bow mounted rigger the gates are closer together at the
finish so the oars are more in line with the boat, as their spread would be
narrower. I wonder what difference that makes to the power at the finish?
The Fluidesign base price is $7000 Canadian. I paid extra for a rounded
rigger (rather than welded joints) and for a clear coat deck, which looks
pretty sharp. The quality of construction is excellent. I'm looking
forward to getting to know the boat better and competing next season to put
it to the test.
I think Gord Henry has put a lot of thought into his innovations and it's
refreshing to see something new on the market that is put together so well,
and is still affordable. I'm impressed.
I still need to do some timed pieces, but I'll wait until I'm completely
recovered from this flu before I get too serious.
............
sue
Ewoud Dronkert
[rave report]
Thanks.
> For instance, the starboard gate moves from about the 10 oclock
> position at the catch to the 2 oclock position at the finish,
> unlike a stern mounted rigger where the gate would move from
> about 10 oclock through to about 8 oclock.
???! Aren't the gates always placed exactly the same: behind the pin?
Only thing different might be where/how the pin is supported.
Ewoud
Triton Utrecht
Jim Dwyer
mounted rigger or a bow mounted rigger.
Jim
"Ewoud Dronkert" <dron...@varsity.notthis.nl> wrote in message
news:90d4u3$2ndl$1...@buty.wanadoo.nl...
Sue Thomas
that I had a brain burp. That bow mounted rigger is already affecting my
thought processes!
.......
sue
Ewoud Dronkert wrote in message <90d4u3$2ndl$1...@buty.wanadoo.nl>...
Steven Maynard-Moody
Elite Boatworks, and Fluidesign. Gord Henry said that the oarlock pin
pivots in such a way that the span is narrower at the catch than at the
finish. I haven't seen the boat so I can't tell you any more.
Steven M-M
Sue Thomas
My boat does have fixed pins, and the spread is constant throughout the
stroke.
My row today was better than yesterday! I expect it'll keep getting better
as I become more familiar. Still getting the rigging set just so, for me.
Still impressed with the ease of adjusting things. And an unexpected bonus
... my StrokeCoach bolted right on to the footstretcher into an existing
slot.
.......
sue
Steven Maynard-Moody wrote in message
<3A2AF81B...@lark.cc.ukans.edu>...
Walter Martindale
Sue Thomas wrote:
> Some folk were interested in my first row in my new boat.
>
> I picked up my new Fluidesign boat last Saturday and finally had opportunity
> to row it today. It's a little disconcerting to have a bow-mounted rigger,
> but aside from that I have to say I am impressed with the boat.
(snip)
While I'm coaching in Alberta now, I was with a group visiting from NZ at the
2000 RC Henley. The woman single (<23) was using a Fluidesign rented from Brock
university. She liked the boat a whole lot.
There's boatbuilder (now importer of Chinese built boats - he can't build his
boats at a competitive price) in Auckland NZ who has been making all-carbon,
bow-mount wing rigger singles and other boats for a while now, with a similar
design to the Fluidesign. A boat with this design of rigger was, I believe,
used by the 96 W2X from NZ.
Walter
Douglas MacFarlane
<dron...@varsity.notthis.nl> wrote:
> "Sue Thomas" <suth...@islandnet.com> wrote:
> [rave report]
>
> Thanks.
>
> > For instance, the starboard gate moves from about the 10 oclock
> > position at the catch to the 2 oclock position at the finish,
> > unlike a stern mounted rigger where the gate would move from
> > about 10 oclock through to about 8 oclock.
>
> ???! Aren't the gates always placed exactly the same: behind the pin?
> Only thing different might be where/how the pin is supported.
>
> Ewoud
> Triton Utrecht
I was also puzzled by this comment. At the riggers not just frames which
support the pin and gate at some fairly fixed position relative to the
hull. I don't see how it matters which direction the rigger goes from the
gate the hull. Does the boat use normal gates or are they different in
some way,
thanks,
Douglas
Douglas MacFarlane
<stev...@lark.cc.ukans.edu> wrote:
> There was a short article in the most recent IRN that discussed 2KV,
> Elite Boatworks, and Fluidesign. Gord Henry said that the oarlock pin
> pivots in such a way that the span is narrower at the catch than at the
> finish. I haven't seen the boat so I can't tell you any more.
>
> Steven M-M
I recall old metal sculling gates which didn't have pins but pivoted
on bearings at the top and the bottom edge where the edge the back
of the blade rested against was in fact behind the axis of rotation
of the gate. This will have resulted in a slightly reduced span
at the catch, and a wider one at the finish compared to a modern
style gate.
W
H=============
| \
| \
| \
| \
===============
M
Gate pivots on W/M axis. Back of blade rests against the sloping edge.
These were from the days of brass gates, none of the new fangles
plastic things....
Cheers,
Douglas
Tony Curran
The pivot points W and M are fixed. The gate itself is angled (pitched) by a
lockable plate under M. This gives the impression of an angled pin providing
the pitch.
So, if the pin can pitch, this would give you what you want. Is this
considered advantageous?
I have a Carl Douglas CD-X. I pitch the pin to 3 degrees and have one degree
on the gate (also one degree lateral pitch) as this is minimum size inserts
made CII..
Isn't the span wider at the catch?
Tony
Ottawa RC
Carl Douglas
>Douglas,
>
>The pivot points W and M are fixed. The gate itself is angled (pitched) by a
>lockable plate under M. This gives the impression of an angled pin providing
>the pitch.
>
>So, if the pin can pitch, this would give you what you want. Is this
>considered advantageous?
>
>I have a Carl Douglas CD-X. I pitch the pin to 3 degrees and have one degree
>on the gate (also one degree lateral pitch) as this is minimum size inserts
>made CII..
>
>Isn't the span wider at the catch?
>>
>> on bearings at the top and the bottom edge where the edge the back
>> of the blade rested against was in fact behind the axis of rotation
>> of the gate. This will have resulted in a slightly reduced span
>> at the catch, and a wider one at the finish compared to a modern
>> style gate.
>>
>> W
>> H=============
>> | \
>> | \
>> | \
>> | \
>> ===============
>> M
>>
>> Gate pivots on W/M axis. Back of blade rests against the sloping edge.
>> These were from the days of brass gates, none of the new fangles
>> plastic things....
>>
fundamental disadvantage of which was the flexibility of the thin C-
shaped backstand which supported the upper of the 2 ball-jointed pivot
points. With this gate the pivot point ran through the back face of the
scull loom. AFAIK you could not get this gate in an identically-shaped
sweep version; the sweep gate had a conventional pin set back from the
back of the loom (obviously), but with no adjustment of pitch.
With the Davis scull gate you could say that the span, or an
interpretation thereof, was constant throughout the stroke.
Tony describes the current C-II gate (with the perfect pin-pitching
solution, AxioR :-) ). Here the pin is beyond the loom, as in the Davis
sweep gate, so you could say that the span is wider at the catch &
narrower at the finish.
There exists in theory, but not in practice, a further arrangement
whereby the gate is hung ahead of the pin, back-to-front compared to the
conventional arrangement. Such a device was patented by Ulrich
Bergermann (in Germany) to assist in implementing Volker Nolte's ideas
on concentrating the stroke into the part ahead of the perpendicular
position. By moving the pin to the other side of the gate it could be
said to give a narrower span at catch & wider at finish. It also would
somewhat alter the path of the blade through the water, perhaps
assisting maintenance of the lift phase of the stroke (which was I think
a part of Nolte's objective). Is it a device of this kind to which Sue
was referring?
Cheers -
Carl
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JZ, UK
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1784-456344 Fax: -466550
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)
Ewoud Dronkert
> By moving the pin to the other side of the gate it could be
> Is it a device of this kind to which Sue was referring?
Reversed gates? That seems very unnatural to me for the bow mounted
wingrigger. However, it could be very handily constructed on the
"conventional" wing! Just attach the pins to the ends of the wing in
stead of on top of them. (Is that in fact the way it is done on the bow
mounted wing?).
Ewoud
Triton Utrecht
sue thomas
not top, of the rigger.
It seems to me on the Hudson quads that the pin/gate twirl a full 360
degrees and are situated on top of the rigger. It's not uncommon on a
sleepy morning to put the oars in with the gate on the wrong side of the
pin. Makes for a damn difficult/sloppy row, or so I've been told.
Is that similar to what is being suggested?
................
sue
Ewoud Dronkert <dron...@varsity.notthis.nl> wrote in message
news:90h484$oc7$1...@buty.wanadoo.nl...
Jim Dwyer
"Carl Douglas" <ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0$eUICAk8$K6Ew1$@rowing-cdrs.demon.co.uk...
> was referring?
>
> Cheers -
> Carl
Carl:
Yes. The oarlock has a U shaped bracket around it and the oarlock swivels
inside the U. The pivot points are the holes that are drilled at the ends
of the U.
See my post on swivel oarlocks.
Jim
Tony Curran
had this design, my first single. Also for the last few years the Dreher
carbon riggers have this design as seen on GB Aylings 4- in previous years
(not 2000) and assorted Fillippi, BBG and Empacher boats. In Sydney 1x
final, Hacker had it on his Empacher and Janson on his Fillippi.
Also, the Davis gate, with the two ball joints top and bottom appeared on
Donoratico sweep boats in early-mid 70's, Ottawa RC has some of these still
lying around.
Tony
Ottawa RC
Douglas MacFarlane
<ajbmc...@sprint.ca> wrote:
Does the sweep oar version have the axis in the same place as the sculling
version? Is the Doneratico version the one used on their two stay aerofoil
rigger design? I recall they had two different styles of rigger in that
period - a multi-stay design which had a conventional pin and gate at
the end which was pitched by moving the pin, and a two-stay aerofoil
design. I never used one of the later so I don't remember what the
gate was like. Was the Doneratico "Davis" gate their normal gate with
ball joints where the pin would normally go, or was it a different
gate.
Thanks,
Douglas
Tony Curran
single. A plate under the gate was adjusted to set the pitch. And it was the
aerofoil rigger design.
Due to winter, the club is closed so I won't be able to confirm anything till
April.
Tony,
Ottawa RC
>