Maximum Coxswain Height
B McDonald
(or weight even).
I know coaches usually like to have their coxswains small (less dead
weight to pull around, etc.).
I know plenty of coxswains between 5ft. 3in. and 5ft. 7in.
Does anyone know of taller coxswains?
I myself am around 5ft. 5in.
I currently cox for Shrewsbury Crew in Shrewsbury, MA and the Killer
Bees Crew (the Quinsigamond Rowing Association masters team).
- B. A. J. McDonald
Spg1x
Nick Suess
>Check out St. Andrews/Penn AC Matt Keyser - 6'2" 120 a.k.a. Q-Tip
He must indeed be something to behold. But the greatest limitation on height
is surely the space made available for the cox in boats of normal
dimensions. Now that, in my more mature years, I am "putting back in" by
spending more hours that I care to think about on coaching raw beginners, I
quite often find myself squeezing into the cox's seat of stern-coxed fours
and eights, and I mean squeezing. Whilst at about 73kg I occasionally find
my hips to be a bit constrained, and in some boats need a cushion to prevent
myself wedging tight before my weight is on the seat, it is the lack of leg
room that is the biggest problem. I am only 175cm (5'9"), but find myself
sufficiently folded up to become painfully crampy by the end of an outing,
and keeping my left knee out of the way of stroke's hands can require some
contortions. And I can't imagine that as boats get shorter (remember the
Empacher vs Resolute debate) the cox's space gets any longer. I suppose a
Q-Tip can slide way down into the coffin of a bow-coxed boat, but you would
have to worry about his ability to get back out in a hurry.
I am working very hard on a radical new design for stroke's footstretcher
and the bulkheads and bits in the area around it. This will enable me to sit
in far greater comfort in the cox's seat with my legs straight and my calves
on either side of stroke's heels. Since I mainly coach mature age ladies who
are just "discovering" our wonderful sport, I feel that this would do a
whole lot for togetherness and be a way of extending a very warm welcome to
newcomers to our club.
Nicholas
David Perry
And this man is actually alive? Is he planning on donating his body to
science?:-)
--
David Perry
Thomas Buell, Jr.
>(or weight even).
There is a *minimum* weight for coxes (not always enforced).
I think it's 120 lbs. Lighter coxes use sandbags to bring up
the weight. As for a max, I don't think any of your
competitors would complain about a tall, heavy cox.
Tom Buell
Three Rivers Rowing Association
Pittsburgh, PA
Paul MacKenzie
clearly enforced minimum cox'n weight of 120 lbs. for men's events.
Cox'ns who weigh less must carry weights (sandbags) to bring them up to
120 lbs. On the other hand, with a supportive crew behind her, a light
cox'n can gain weight rapidly in a variety of ways. Several years ago I
witnessed a rower slipping box wrenches into the hood of his cox'n's
sweatshirt as she stepped onto the scale at nationals...
B McDonald wrote:
> Out of pure curiosity, is there any unofficial maximum coxswain height
> (or weight even).
cynthja
>
> >Out of pure curiosity, is there any unofficial maximum coxswain height
> >(or weight even).
>
> I think it's 120 lbs. Lighter coxes use sandbags to bring up
> the weight. As for a max, I don't think any of your
> competitors would complain about a tall, heavy cox.
>
according to FISA minimum weight is 50kg (girls) 55kg (boys) and they
can have up to 10kg in weights beside them if they are underweight. In
Australia it's 45kg (girls) and 50kg (boys).
cynthja
cynthja
just sits on the top of the back of the seat
cynthja
cynthja
> and the bulkheads and bits in the area around it. This will enable me to sit
> in far greater comfort in the cox's seat with my legs straight and my calves
> on either side of stroke's heels.
THis is exactly what I do half the time Nic. Some boats I cox I have my
legs straight and besides the stroke's feet on his stretchers. Of
course the hardest thing while sitting like this is when we do pieces or
races I find it difficult to stop moving without my legs pressed against
the ribs of the boat.
Then again what about the question of minimum height? I was once in a
Christchurch bow-loaded four which had no end to the coffin. I could
actually slide down right underneath the bow canvas and squeeze one foot
down to touch the inside canvas by the bow ball! It was impossible to
cox, as everytime we did a piece I slid further and further down towards
the bow!
I'm 5'2" and can never sit/lie in a bow-loader correctly as I always
seem to be too short. Is that a rule? do boat builders make
stern-coxed for short people and bow-loaders for tall??
cynthja
Nick Suess
>seem to be too short.
Now that I've met you, I can say that you're not too short, you're too
skinny!
No, this is not really a personal comment, but an observation that front
loaders do indeed seem to lack any constraint to stop the cox sliding
forwards. I have a mental picture of a scenario in which a front loader is
in a heavy collision, the momentum of the cox thus thrusts her/him along the
canvas where he/she becomes inextricably wedged, maybe unsconscious, as the
boat rolls or sinks.
I have never liked them from safety point of view, and am glad that I am too
big to be tempted to ever get in one. I once saw a front loader pair
overturn in a regatta in Melbourne, in the shallow water of Albert Park
Lake, in its peaceful pre-formula-one days. The rowers emerged, stood up
waist deep, started to laugh at their misfortune, and only after a couple of
seconds realised there was no sign of their cox. They rolled the boat
through a quarter turn and she slid out not a little shocked. And of course
the compulsory lifejacket was in fact exacerbating her problem, not just for
it making her a tighter fit in the coffin, but also as its buoyancy was
holding her into the inverted hull.
I reckon if the rules committees of FISA and of National Associations want
to make a big contribution to the safety of coxes, not to mention their
warmth and comfort, they will develop a plan to phase out front loaders from
competition. I reckon they are a bad idea that has had its day.
Nicholas
cynthja
> Now that I've met you, I can say that you're not too short, you're too
> skinny!
>
>
>
> I reckon if the rules committees of FISA and of National Associations want
> to make a big contribution to the safety of coxes, not to mention their
> warmth and comfort, they will develop a plan to phase out front loaders from
> competition. I reckon they are a bad idea that has had its day.
>
Unfortunately for us coxes, from a physics point of view bow-loaders are
better due to the weight distribution in the boat. And then of course
there's the rowers contribution that there's no excuse for steering of
course in a bow-loader, coz you can see exactly where you're going.
Luckily bow-loaders will never permeated down to club level because at
novice and maiden level the coxswain is too important in regard to
getting the crew's balance and timing etc... than steering dead
straight. Novices in a bow-loader is not a good idea.
cynthja
Nick Suess
>> I reckon if the rules committees of FISA and of National Associations
want
>> to make a big contribution to the safety of coxes, not to mention their
>> warmth and comfort, they will develop a plan to phase out front loaders
from
>> competition. I reckon they are a bad idea that has had its day.
>>
>Unfortunately for us coxes,
See, coxes really don't like them at all.
>from a physics point of view bow-loaders are better due to the weight
distribution in the boat.
I keep hearing this, but don't know whether it actually means anything. I'm
inclined to doubt it. I reckon it's just another example of widely broadcast
bollocks. If it gets repeated enough, people start to believe it. Surely a
boat is designed so that its buoyancy profile corresponds to the weight
distribution of the rowers and cox. Essentially, get the centre of buoyancy
under the centre of mass, and she'll float at the desired level.
And anyway, why should physics considerations necessarily come into this? I
mean, my understanding is that sliding riggers would be more efficient as
they cut out the reciprocating body mass problem, but that hasn't stopped
them from being banned.
I repeat my contention that for safety reasons alone, FISA should head up a
strategy to phase these boats out. They have always been a tragedy waiting
to happen, and in an ever more litigious world, I would not much fancy the
prospects of whichever school, club or association is the unlucky first to
have a cox drown in one. I reckon the surviving relatives would be able to
go for broke in the courts over the issue of duty of care, when the safer
alternative of a stern coxed boat clearly exists, and indeed pre-existed the
front loader by who knows how long, but certainly ever since the inception
of rowing as a sport. And once that happens, all those expensive fleets of
front loaders will be rendered instantly unusable. So the authorities need
to take a lead, and just hope that tragedy does not strike during the
intervening time. And maybe this will need to be over a 10, 15 or even 20
year period, to allow a fair lifetime to those boats already built and in
use, and should start at the top. After all, elite athletes never seem to
row boats more than a year or two old, so if they were banned at that level
by about 2005, and gradually and sequentially all boats including the
hand-me-downs would drop out of all competition sometime between 2010 and
2020. Do I have any supporters? My campaign will have a title most
appropriate to this news group, and it is BABBLE (Ban All Boats of Bow
Loading Example).
>
>Luckily
Note the second emotively expressed opinion of this experienced cox
>bow-loaders will never permeated down to club level because at
>novice and maiden level the coxswain is too important in regard to
>getting the crew's balance and timing etc... than steering dead
>straight. Novices in a bow-loader is not a good idea.
Ever been in the UK, Cynthja? Would somebody there like to estimate for us
what percentage of school and novice crews row in front loading fours?
Yours contentiously
Nicholas
Carl Douglas
>distribution in the boat.
>
>I keep hearing this, but don't know whether it actually means anything. I'm
>inclined to doubt it. I reckon it's just another example of widely broadcast
>bollocks. If it gets repeated enough, people start to believe it.
loaders are the reduced windage (as with certain riggers ;-) ) and
lowered centre of gravity. Osteopaths may also benefit later.
>
>my understanding is that sliding riggers would be more efficient as
>they cut out the reciprocating body mass problem, but that hasn't stopped
>them from being banned.
enough & fiction becomes truth, methinks. I know you wouldn't want me
to go into the technical whys & wherefores, but I recall no particular
bump in the general progression of 1x race times which relates to the
start or end of the sliding rigger era. Let's just say it was an
interesting experiment but results didn't justify the complexity.
>
>I repeat my contention that for safety reasons alone, FISA should head up a
>strategy to phase these boats out. They have always been a tragedy waiting
>to happen, and in an ever more litigious world, I would not much fancy the
>prospects of whichever school, club or association is the unlucky first to
>have a cox drown in one.
would be well occupied thoughtfully addressing & reporting on such
identifiable safety issues.
>
>Yours contentiously
>
>Nicholas
And to be a bit contentious myself (what? me!?):
I certainly think that would be better for rowing than making fatuous
artificial rules about boat weights which allow self-important officials
to disqualify crews for minimal infringements but entirely overlook
these facts:
1. It is not proven that lighter boats necessarily make crews faster.
In fact it depends on technique, crew size & conditions as to whether a
lighter boat would make the crew faster or slower.
2. Crews, particularly scullers, come to the same event at markedly
different weights, so how does it make it "fair" for all to race the
same weight of boat?
3. There's no sense in expecting a 59kg woman to row & carry the same
weight of boat as a 100kg man
4. A change to better, more serviceable, fittings may well render an on-
weight boat illegally light (only limited ballasting now being allowed!)
It's a mad old world
Cheers -
Carl
Carl Douglas Racing Shells
(for AeRoWing low-drag Riggers & Fine Small-Boats)
The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JZ, Great Britain
URL http://www.rowing-cdrs.demon.co.uk TEL +44 (0) 1784-456344
E-mail carld...@rowing-cdrs.demon.co.uk FAX +44 (0) 1784-466550
Nick Suess
>>>cynthja wrote
>>>from a physics point of view bow-loaders are better due to the weight
>>distribution in the boat.
>>Nick wrote
>>I keep hearing this, but don't know whether it actually means anything.
I'm
>>inclined to doubt it. I reckon it's just another example of widely
broadcast
>>bollocks. If it gets repeated enough, people start to believe it.
And Carl wrote
>I think you're probably right there, Nick. The key advantages of bow
>loaders are the reduced windage (as with certain riggers ;-) )
which ones might they be????
>and lowered centre of gravity. Osteopaths may also benefit later.
Another, and in this case very learned, opinion that front loaders really
are bad news for coxes
>>I repeat my contention that for safety reasons alone, FISA should head up
a
>>strategy to phase these boats out. They have always been a tragedy waiting
>>to happen, and in an ever more litigious world, I would not much fancy the
>>prospects of whichever school, club or association is the unlucky first to
>>have a cox drown in one.
>Here again you might be right. I do think FISA time & official ties
>would be well occupied thoughtfully addressing & reporting on such
>identifiable safety issues.
>And to be a bit contentious myself (what? me!?):
>I certainly think that would be better for rowing than making fatuous
>artificial rules about boat weights which allow self-important officials
>to disqualify crews for minimal infringements but entirely overlook
>these facts:
>1. It is not proven that lighter boats necessarily make crews faster.
>In fact it depends on technique, crew size & conditions as to whether a
>lighter boat would make the crew faster or slower.
>2. Crews, particularly scullers, come to the same event at markedly
>different weights, so how does it make it "fair" for all to race the
>same weight of boat?
>3. There's no sense in expecting a 59kg woman to row & carry the same
>weight of boat as a 100kg man
>4. A change to better, more serviceable, fittings may well render an on-
>weight boat illegally light (only limited ballasting now being allowed!)
>
>It's a mad old world
Congratulations Carl, I couldn't agree more. And are the current boat
weights cast in concrete? Other than minor twitching to unify 2-/2x weight
limits, that seems to be the case. And as I understand it, materials
technology that is in the public sphere now enables virtually anyone to
build a boat that is about 5% under FISA regulations. Am I right? If so,
have FISA simply lost the plot on this one?
My BABBLE campaign against bow loaders is motivated to some considerable
extent by the incident I reported earlier, when I witnessed a potential
drowning incident in one. That cox spent what must have been a terrifying 15
seconds or so under water. That it happened in a shallow lake in the
Melbourne summer helped there to be a happy outcome. Had it been in a deep,
icy, and fast flowing river, and the rowers been thus preoccupied with
self-preservation, it just might have ended differently.
I first saw a front loader during the late '60s. Maybe they were around long
before that, and someone might enlighten us on this. But in those early days
I recall that the cox had a large open cockpit, which extended to well
beyond his/her waist in the semi-recumbent position. Then they started
decking over the cockpit. I have noticed that FISA specifies a minimum
opening size, which indicates their clear awareness of the danger. But
whilst that opening may permit what they consider adequate egress for a 5'2"
cox at minimum weight, when you have someone like the Q-Tip guy referred to
early in this thread, with long long legs to extract, it would be another
matter, as I commented earlier.
I am just astonished that as we approach the millenium, equipment that is so
hazardous to the health and safety of athletes is permitted by any sport's
governing body.
So now, let's hear from anyone out there who actually likes front loaders.
N
Douglas MacFarlane
<g...@mail.networx.net.au> wrote:
> cynthja wrote in message <3753A4...@yahoo.com>...
> >> I reckon if the rules committees of FISA and of National Associations
> want
> >> to make a big contribution to the safety of coxes, not to mention their
> >> warmth and comfort, they will develop a plan to phase out front loaders
> from
> >> competition. I reckon they are a bad idea that has had its day.
> >>
> >Unfortunately for us coxes,
>
> See, coxes really don't like them at all.
....
Stuff deleted to keep news system happy!!!
....
> I repeat my contention that for safety reasons alone, FISA should head up a
> strategy to phase these boats out. They have always been a tragedy waiting
> to happen, and in an ever more litigious world, I would not much fancy the
> prospects of whichever school, club or association is the unlucky first to
> have a cox drown in one. I reckon the surviving relatives would be able to
> go for broke in the courts over the issue of duty of care, when the safer
> alternative of a stern coxed boat clearly exists, and indeed pre-existed the
> front loader by who knows how long, but certainly ever since the inception
> of rowing as a sport.
....
More stuff deleted to keep news system happy!!!
....
If we are looking at this from a total safety view - are boats with
someone at the front looking forward safer than ones were the only
person looking forward is at the back with poeple directly in front of
them?
Perhaps a redisign of the coxes area at the front might be worth
considering. I recall and old Doneratico bow coxed 4 where the
whole of the cox's area was open - their exit would have been
impeded by the bar across this space which supported the rudder handle,
but, I it might be possible to devise a safer set up for the steering
system which would allow the cox easy exit.
....
Yet more stuff deleted to keep news system happy!!!
....
> Yours contentiously
>
> Nicholas
Douglas
B McDonald
>>as everytime we did a piece I slid further and further down towards
>> the bow!<<
I coxed a Vespoli front-loader 4+ once. I found a PFD (Personal
Flotation Device a.k.a. a life jacket) stuffed down in the bow. The
previous coxswain must have been too short and put it there to stop them
from sliding.
On the topic of bow-coxed boats, Dirigo makes a nice one. It's not a
coffin. The coxswain's space is all open. You can't slide under the
fore deck (or get trapped if it flips).
-Bri
B McDonald
Part of the cox's body is under the fore deck.
Dirigo makes a front-loaded four with an open coxswain compartment.
If the boat flips, the cox can easily get out of the boat.
Bow-loaders shouldn't be phased out, they should just be redesigned.
Boat builders should do what Dirigo has done, built a front-loader that
the cox's safety is as good as a stern-cox.
FISA should make a rule about that. Don't do away with front-loaders.
Why would a cox wear a PFD? If they're wearing a PFD, especially in a
box-loader, I'd say they're not too intelligent or at least lacking a
bit of common sense.
First off, all oarsmen and coxswains should be able to swim (Coxswains
especially since they get thrown in for a win).
And for the head on collision debate, if the cox is in the stern the
bowman is the first to get hurt, if it's a bow cox, the cox gets hurt.
Either way someone would get hurt.
I'm sure there are those of you out there who say "Well the coxswain
needs to steer the boat and get the crew home". If the collision
was bad enough to injure a cox in the bow, chances are the bow
compartment is filled with water or some other thing has happened.
Either way, the boat would be pretty damn tricky to manuever home.
Anyway like I said before, boat builders should make open cox
compartment front-loaders.
-Brian
B McDonald
>
> I know a cox'n who is 6'4", when he gets a boat in which he can't sit he
> just sits on the top of the back of the seat
>
> cynthja
>
I know plenty of coxs that do this even when they can fit.
Bri
J. Michaels
advantages, it could be implemented using removable spray-skirts, ala
kayak technology. They are waterproof but can be popped-off quite
easily.
Jim
Nick Suess
>The problem with most bow-loaders is that the cox's space is a coffin.
Precisely, and potentially literally
>Part of the cox's body is under the fore deck.
>Dirigo makes a front-loaded four with an open coxswain compartment.
Had you read more carefully my earlier comment, you would have noted that I
recalled that the earliest front loaders had open cockpits like that. I
think the first I saw was a Donoratico. But I expect that the closed in
decks that we now see are done for aerodynamic and boat stiffness reasons.
Doesn't stop them from being crap design from the point of view of comfort
and above all safety.
>If the boat flips, the cox can easily get out of the boat.
>Bow-loaders shouldn't be phased out, they should just be redesigned.
>Boat builders should do what Dirigo has done, built a front-loader that
>the cox's safety is as good as a stern-cox.
>FISA should make a rule about that.
Sorry to labour the point, but again, please read more carefully. FISA does
indeed have a rule about that. See below:
FISA Rule 2.8
"The opening of the coxswain's seat must be at leat 70 cm long and it must
be as wide as the boat for at least 50 cm. The inner surface of the enclosed
part must be smooth and no structure of any sort may restrict the inner
width of the coxswains section."
Now just lay out a piece of string on your carpet at home and mark out that
area, imagining what the typical width of a boat's bow canvas section is.
Just look how small it is. Then imagine somebody trying to get out of that
in a hurry, upside down in icy water, possibly even in the dark if it is
winter season training. If that is not a woefully inadequate escape route,
then I'm a Spice Girl.
>Don't do away with front-loaders.
Who would miss them?
>Why would a cox wear a PFD? If they're wearing a PFD, especially in a
>box-loader, I'd say they're not too intelligent or at least lacking a
>bit of common sense.
Thank God you didn't use the word "retard" there! But look here, me old
matey, have you been living in an iron lung? Where in the world are coxes
permitted onto the water in any competition event WITHOUT a life jacket
(call it a PFD if that makes you feel clever)?
>First off, all oarsmen and coxswains should be able to swim
even when unconscious?
>And for the head on collision debate, if the cox is in the stern the
>bowman is the first to get hurt, if it's a bow cox, the cox gets hurt.
Listen, I've done a lot of my rowing (and we're talking about since the mid
60s here) in the bow seat of stern coxed boats. Any bow person worthy of the
name knows to glance round every few strokes, just like a sculler does, and
survey the water dead ahead for any fixed or moving hazard that may be in
the arc of invisibility for the cox. And once a hazard is spotted, you alert
the cox to its presence.
Head on collisions hull to hull very seldom happen. The target is very small
indeed. But we all know that good coxes are like hens' teeth, and clubs and
schools buy front loaders because they reckon they can then get
inexperienced kids to cox in them. And how many times do you see those same
inexeprienced kids forgetting just how wide those big sweeps are sticking
out on either side behind them? Pretty damn often, from what I have seen.
And as a result of this, how many bow or 2 rowers have received serious
hand, arm or chest injuries from racing speed blade tip impacts with marker
posts, bridge abutments, or the blades of oncoming boats?
I have absolutely no doubt in my mind, old and deluded though it may indeed
be, that safety for all would be best served by the implementation of a
clear policy in the rowing world. That policy is in two parts.
1/ Devise strategies to recruit, train and retain good intelligent coxes
of a sufficient age for reasoned mature judgement (ie get the 10 year olds
out of the coxes' seats at regattas, and I've seen plenty of them there).
2/ Put them in the stern of the boat, where they can see what their own
crew is doing.
That's it.
N
Dave Porter
Having seen this, you must of at one point rowed in a boat with a cox doing
this. Notice anything? In my experience the boat tends to be less stable due
to the higher center of gravity of the cox. This is the same reason for
having bow loaded boats, lowered center of gravity. Not that this makes a
significant difference, but I believe that it is the rationale.
Dave
Nick Suess
>> >
>> > I know a cox'n who is 6'4", when he gets a boat in which he can't sit
he
>> > just sits on the top of the back of the seat
>> I know plenty of cox(E)s that do this even when they can fit.
>>
>> Bri
>
>Having seen this, you must of (HAVE!!!) at one point rowed in a boat with a
cox doing
>this. Notice anything? In my experience the boat tends to be less stable
due
>to the higher center of gravity of the cox.
Usually as in Cynthja's example it's a big guy coaching from the cox's seat,
and his effect on the C of G would be noticeable in the seat or out of it.
But what causes more instability if one sits out on the stern canvas is that
the cox does not have a comfortably stable platform, and hips and lower back
are unsupported. It's very hard for a cox to remain "centred" in a moving
boat under such circumstances, and any corrective movement of the cox's bum
at that height has a significant turning moment about the longitudinal axis
of the boat.
>This is the same reason for having bow loaded boats, lowered center of
gravity. Not that this makes a
>significant difference,
Precisely. Look at tiny little Vian sitting snug down there, with all those
big hunky light blue spunkrats sitting so high in front of her. They could
balance the boat OK, no worries. And would it make the slightest difference
were she to be lying down? In the boat, I mean!
N
David Biddulph
[snip]
>Sorry to labour the point, but again, please read more carefully. FISA does
>indeed have a rule about that. See below:
>
>FISA Rule 2.8
>"The opening of the coxswain's seat must be at leat 70 cm long and it must
>be as wide as the boat for at least 50 cm. The inner surface of the
enclosed
>part must be smooth and no structure of any sort may restrict the inner
>width of the coxswains section."
Actually bye-law 2.8 to Rule 27. If readers are struggling to find it in
the new structure of FISA's web site, it's at:
http://www.fisa.org/fisa2/FISARulesofRacing.html#Rule 27
--
David Biddulph
Rowing web pages at:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/david_biddulph/
Nick Suess
David Biddulph wrote in message ...
Yes, you're quite correct, and the typo ("leat" instead of "least") is
theirs, not mine.
And bye-law 2.5 states
"All boats used at international regattas and FISA World Championship
regattas shall be of the following minimum weights"
But no figures for minimum weights follow!
Maybe to Carl's great delight these have been abandoned.
N
Tim Granger
B McDonald <bmcd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>cynthja wrote:
>>>as everytime we did a piece I slid further and further down towards
>>> the bow!<<
>
>
>I coxed a Vespoli front-loader 4+ once. I found a PFD (Personal
>Flotation Device a.k.a. a life jacket) stuffed down in the bow. The
>previous coxswain must have been too short and put it there to stop them
>from sliding.
Our current front loader IV, which is a BBG, has a foot-rest in the
bows so the cox has something to put their feet against. It's
movable to adjust for different sizes of cox as well. It seem
inconceivable to me that others don't have this feature.
Tim Granger
--
Rob Roy & Kings College Boat Clubs, Cambridge UK
Rowjob
news:3753c...@news.highway1.com.au...
>
> So now, let's hear from anyone out there who actually likes front loaders.
>
> N
Well, I am glad you asked because I have coxed for the A-team of my boat
club (I do more coxing than rowing) and we use a coxed four of the
bow-loader type. I find them much more comfortable than the stern 'sitting'
type because I am about 5' 10" and so I have plenty of leg room in the
bow-loader.
I also go right under so that only my head emerges from the cockpit
cover and this helps to reduce wind resistance which is sometimes crucial in
750m sprint races.
Steering is also far more accurate for a cox in a bow-loader type
because you are looking straight ahead and can judge distances and curves
far more easily than in the stern-coxed type (I also know this to be true
because I have coxed for a novice eight crew and it was a nuisance having to
stretch you neck out to look past the rowers to steer the boat especially
when some of these 'rowers' were extremely obese...)
However, I also feel that this point about the safety of the cox is a
valid argument but I have been in a bowloader four that has flipped before
and I managed to get out safely enough even though I was wearing wellies, a
lifejacket and was fully clothed. True it may be that this bowloader is a
potential hazard but it is a risk that coxes like me and others may want to
take because of the benefits that it provides.
john
writes
>The problem with most bow-loaders is that the cox's space is a coffin.
>Dirigo makes a front-loaded four with an open coxswain compartment.
>Bow-loaders shouldn't be phased out, they should just be redesigned.
>Boat builders should do what Dirigo has done, built a front-loader that
>the cox's safety is as good as a stern-cox.
>
>Why would a cox wear a PFD? If they're wearing a PFD, especially in a
>box-loader, I'd say they're not too intelligent or at least lacking a
>bit of common sense.
Perhaps you have never see the juniors of a Club press-ganged into
coxing a Senior 3 boat out 20 year olds who are only interested in
getting out on the water doing the mileage and going to the pub but
believe me it happens.
Not all coxswains in Club boats are experienced enough to say 'NO' I
wont wear that it's dangerous.
Similarly why does anyone in a sculling boat tie their feet in so tight
we have to have rules about heal restraints. I have always though it
better to scull and row with loose laces so your feet can move
comfortably, will therefore come out easily and allows you to feel the
boats balance on the feet.
People unfortunately do silly things and safety Rules will always be
needed front loaders fall into the same category.
I therefore am total in agreement that there needs to better Rules on
how bow loaders are built. Do lets have some rules on leg space in boats
and stop boards in bow loaders.
------------------------------------------
Perhaps the point we should also be asking is of the boat builders!
What is the percentage of fours being built of Bow loaders to stern
loaders?
Unfortunately most small clubs cant afford to have different boats built
for their novice crews. Eventually the boat the top crews use this year
will in 8 to 10 years time end up being used by the Novices (or earlier
if they are lucky). We also now that Novices don’t always get the most
experience or best coxswains and therefore tend to have more minor
accidents. ( However, as they go slower and tend to be less arrogant I
think they tend not to have so many serious accidents as
the top crews who often don’t slow down/stop until is to late.)
So Boat Builder what is the percentage your building of each type oif
coxed four.
I am particularly interested in the UK where many Clubs row on Bendy
rivers. At my Club we have always thought that novice coxswains in front
loaders would find it more difficult to judge blade clearances to over
hanging bushes and cruisers than in a stern loader. I also think that
it is not just that they can see the blades in the stern loader but the
fact that as you get closer to the water distances are actually more
difficult to judge. Any Comments please from those that Cox both types
of boat?
------------------------
One last point re coxwains part of the boat.
I think that a lot of modern boat shapes have been moulded from bow
loaders and transferred to stern loaders so the coxswains space has go
so narrow that no one with normal hips can site in the seat even our
older 1953 boat race coxswain cant get into one of our boats with out
raising the seat with padding as it is to narrow. This also appears
dangerous to me as we may find coxswains getting stuck at that end or
having problems with bad circulation and cramps brought on by being
forced into to narrow a space. ANY COMMENTS! Suggest new thread on
Coxing Narrow boats?
--
Gniwor
Maidstone UK
john
<g...@mail.networx.net.au> writes
>
>
>
>>Part of the cox's body is under the fore deck.
>>Dirigo makes a front-loaded four with an open coxswain compartment.
>
>recalled that the earliest front loaders had open cockpits like that. I
>think the first I saw was a Donoratico. But I expect that the closed in
>decks that we now see are done for aerodynamic and boat stiffness reasons.
>Doesn't stop them from being crap design from the point of view of comfort
>and above all safety.
>
>>Bow-loaders shouldn't be phased out, they should just be redesigned.
>>Boat builders should do what Dirigo has done, built a front-loader that
>>the cox's safety is as good as a stern-cox.
>>FISA should make a rule about that.
>
>indeed have a rule about that. See below:
>
>FISA Rule 2.8
>"The opening of the coxswain's seat must be at leat 70 cm long and it must
>be as wide as the boat for at least 50 cm. The inner surface of the enclosed
>part must be smooth and no structure of any sort may restrict the inner
>width of the coxswains section."
>
>area, imagining what the typical width of a boat's bow canvas section is.
>Just look how small it is. Then imagine somebody trying to get out of that
>in a hurry, upside down in icy water, possibly even in the dark if it is
>winter season training. If that is not a woefully inadequate escape route,
>then I'm a Spice Girl.
>
>
>
>>Why would a cox wear a PFD? If they're wearing a PFD, especially in a
>>box-loader, I'd say they're not too intelligent or at least lacking a
>>bit of common sense.
>
>
--
Gniwor
Kenneth St.Germain
: matey, have you been living in an iron lung? Where in the world are coxes
: permitted onto the water in any competition event WITHOUT a life jacket
: (call it a PFD if that makes you feel clever)?
The United States.
I saw the Canadian nat'l teams row at Head of the Charles last fall, their
coxes didn't have PFDs either. So Canada too.
: Listen, I've done a lot of my rowing (and we're talking about since the mid
: 60s here) in the bow seat of stern coxed boats. Any bow person worthy of the
Live in the now.
Ken
edgar cove
>
>Anyway like I said before, boat builders should make open cox
>compartment front-loaders.
>
>-Brian
If they did that the space would fill with water from any wash or rough
water encountered even more than they do now. Why do you suppose front
loaders are banned from the Head of the River race?
--
edgar (remove nospam from return address for e-mail reply)
B McDonald
Thank you.
-B
B McDonald
>
> >> I know plenty of cox(E)s that do this even when they can fit.
> >>
> >> Bri
> >
> >Having seen this, you must of (HAVE!!!) at one point rowed in a boat with a
Are you an English professor or something of the sort?
You seem to enjoy picking out grammatical errors and whatnot.
B McDonald
> >the cox's safety is as good as a stern-cox.
> >FISA should make a rule about that.
>
> Sorry to labour the point, but again, please read more carefully. FISA does
> indeed have a rule about that.
Perhaps I should have chosen my words more carefully. Yes, I am quite
aware of that rule. What I meant was, FISA should change it so that the
compartment is safer. Perhaps we should both be reading more carefully.
> >Don't do away with front-loaders.
>
> Who would miss them?
I would, so would alot of other people I know.
> Thank God you didn't use the word "retard" there! But look here, me old
> matey, have you been living in an iron lung? Where in the world are coxes
> permitted onto the water in any competition event WITHOUT a life jacket
> (call it a PFD if that makes you feel clever)?
I appologize. That comment was directed to the United States (coxes
don't need to were PFDs). I didn't mean to offend you.
Oh and by the way, PFD is the proper term, I wasn't trying to sound
clever (it's just the US and it's political correctness, or euphamism,
that's getting to me).
>
> Listen, I've done a lot of my rowing (and we're talking about since the mid
> 60s here) in the bow seat of stern coxed boats.
Have you ever been in a bow-coxed boat?
And alot has changed since the 60's.
Don't allow yourself to get trapped in the past. Be open-minded try a
bit of optimism.
>>Any bow person worthy of the
> name knows to glance round every few strokes, just like a sculler does, and
> survey the water dead ahead for any fixed or moving hazard that may be in
> the arc of invisibility for the cox. And once a hazard is spotted, you alert
> the cox to its presence.
This is a good idea provided that the bowman knows this and turns
around. I know of many that don't. I've also had bowmen that are very
quiet. There would be no way that I could hear them and they seemed
pretty clueless to begin with ( I don't want to be mean, I'm just
telling a true story from my expireience). <---I also can't spell (it's
late at night and I have to get up early)
> 1/ Devise strategies to recruit, train and retain good intelligent coxes
> of a sufficient age for reasoned mature judgement (ie get the 10 year olds
> out of the coxes' seats at regattas, and I've seen plenty of them there).
I agree.
And if this happens, bow-loaders wouldn't be as much of a problem as you
claim them to be.
-B
Nick Suess
>>Anyway like I said before, boat builders should make open cox
>>compartment front-loaders.
>If they did that the space would fill with water from any wash or rough
>water encountered even more than they do now. Why do you suppose front
>loaders are banned from the Head of the River race?
I think it's because they would be BAD NEWS when boats are overtaking or
being overtaken, and SERIOUS BAD NEWS when several boats are involved, and
anyone who knows the Tideway Head has seen enough examples of congested
knots of boats vying for the same bit of the stream.
You will all have gathered by now that my opinion is that they are serious
bad news full stop.
N
Nick Suess
Despite the fact that there has been only one submission in favour of front
loaders (from "Rowjob", who claims that his e-mail address is
f...@thebastards.com , and at 5' 10" is a cox of unusual dimension, who
states quite clearly that he will gladly risk drowning to improve his crew's
performance) I think it is time to hear what the silent majority have to
say. So in the best traditions of tabloid journalism, I propose that we
conduct a straw poll amongst our readership.
I feel that a choice of "Yes", "No" and "Maybe" would be in the best
interests of fairness, and so to cover all possible shades of opinion, I
offer you all the opportunity to select any one from the three unbiased
statements below:
1. Along with my colleague Count Dracula, I like getting into coffins and
seeing other people in them, and am wholeheartedly in favour of front
loaders ha ha ha ha ha!
2. Whilst acknowledging that coxes in front loaders suffer hypothermia and
are at very much greater risk of drowning, I am an inveterate fence-sitter,
and am not entirely sure that they should necessarily be banned.
3. I think that front loaders are inherently dangerous, and will be pleased
to see the early end of their use in our sport.
In order to avoid our newsgroup being blocked up (in Oscar the Lion fashion)
by all the responses, they can be sent direct to me, and I will collate them
and report back the results at the end of the month. In the meantime I will
of course send the guys in white coats round to anyone selecting answer 1.
Now I can't say fairer than that, can I?
Nicholas
Jeremy Fagan
don't think that I would ever try coxing one myself (being rather too large
to cox generally - I only cox in order to coach crews from the cox's seat -
rather pointless in a bow-loader), but it is possible to wear one of those
rather lovely lifejackets that don't inflate until you pull the cord - that
is, when you've got out of the boat. Of course, if you get one that
autoinflates when wet, then you deserve everything you get. (Mind you, we've
told our coxes that if they ever do use the handle to inflate them, they
will have to pay for a new cylinder themselves. They've all been shown how
to blow them up should they need it... :-) )
_But_ we use our bowloader on inland rivers, that are generally quite smooth
and sheltered. I wouldn't want to take one out in rougher water - something
to do with the cox ending up lying down in all the wash.
Of course, you could just have a giant spring coiled up under the footrest
for the cox, so that if the cox ever capsized, they could just pull a lever,
and go shooting out, rather like an ejector seat. :-)
Hurrah for bowloaders, I say.
Jeremy
R P Collings
> > box-loader, I'd say they're not too intelligent or at least lacking a
> > bit of common sense.
> > especially since they get thrown in for a win).
Well, I'll start with the swimming thing. According to the ARA WSC - I'm
sure those of you on the other side of the Atlantic (and elsewhere) have
something similar - states that all coxes and rowers should be able to
swim 50m in light clothing.
As for PFDs, wearing one in a bow loader would make no difference - you'd
still be able to get out easily - rules about portal sizes have been
mentioned somewhere. Why wear them? Picyure the scene - its a freezing
cold day in the middle of winter (or it could be summer over here) and
you've been on the go for an hour or so. The boat flips. the rowers - nice
and warm - have plenty of blood flowing and can quite easily swim off. The
cox, however, has been sitting there, freezing their ass off. Not very
good for circulation. In the extreme, this could cause them to lose
consciousness. Wearing a bouyancy aid might not help too much then - 50/50
chance of being the right way up - but at least you're on top of the
water.
Thats the reasoning as I understand it anyway. The same idea applies to
races aswell (although not quite so extreme, probably)
Robin.
R P Collings
Unless drowning appeals to you.
Robin.
R P Collings
just a bouyancy aid. There is a differnce.
A bouyancy aid just helps you float. In its crudest form its a jacket full
of foam. A lifejacket, on the other hand is designed specially so that,
even if you lose consciousness, you float with your fgace up and with your
head in such a position as to keep your airway open - they usually have
two bits down the front - one either side - and a bit behind the neck.
Clearly LJs are better in terms of safety - buit have you ever tried
swimming in one???
Robin.
On 2 Jun 1999, Kenneth St.Germain wrote:
> : Thank God you didn't use the word "retard" there! But look here, me old
> : matey, have you been living in an iron lung? Where in the world are coxes
> : permitted onto the water in any competition event WITHOUT a life jacket
> : (call it a PFD if that makes you feel clever)?
>
Anu Dudhia
> sure those of you on the other side of the Atlantic (and elsewhere) have
> something similar - states that all coxes and rowers should be able to
> swim 50m in light clothing.
Actually it's "100m in light clothing and shoes", but what the heck.
Neil Selby
The ARA Water Safety Code has this to say:
18. All coxswains shall wear a life jacket (conforming to BS3595 standard)
or a buoyancy aid of approved design at all times when on the water.
Coxswains in "front-loader" positions must wear
life jackets which allow them easy escape from their position.
It doesn't say what an "approved design" is. I assume they're not the ones
which make one float face down though. Still they've covered themselves
with that last sentence.
cheers,
Neil
JWilko
coxes feet. this stops her sliding into the bows but does mean that if anyone
taller than about 5'6" ends up with their head in bow's way at the finish (but
this maybe says something about our rowing as well)
Rob
Well, I was close. Anyway, if you can swim 50m you can probably swim 50.
Robin.
Rob
I never said "make one float face down" basically, a bouyancy aid will keep you
afloat, but you are free to roll around. a 50/50 chance of being the right way
up, if you get knocked out (which is probably unlikely for a cox).
"Approved design" probably means the ARA's own auto inflators which they sell
for an extortionate amount.
Robin.