Heel restraints - yet again
Carl Douglas
our manufacture, I hasten to add, but I don't necessarily blame its
maker for what happened.
A junior sculler had capsized a club boat. He was trapped by his feet.
He then struggled so hard to escape that the stretcher broke in half,
but both parts still remained attached to the boat. How, in the end, he
freed himself I do not yet know, but by great good fortune he got free,
so he survives.
Examining that stretcher, I find that the heel restraints are in good
mechanical condition and neither broken nor detached.
What scandalises me is that these restraints were and remain set to
allow over 12cm of heel lift.
Regular RSR readers will know that I introduced heel restraints into
this sport ~35 years ago, after the move from clogs to shoes caused a
series of under-publicised drownings & narrow escapes for rowers unable
to extract their feet when capsized. It took about 10 years for FISA to
catch on and mandate heel restraints, during which period more rowers
drowned. After which, it took no time for various self-appointed but
ignorant "experts" to make up worthless standards for their application.
And readers will know (or can Google back) that I have carefully
explained why the maximum lift off the heel of the stretcher should
_never_ exceed 5cm/2".
But still we see bootlaces with pretty bows tied in them being supplied
in new boats as so-called heel restraints. And still we have the (I
have to say this) shameless idiots who invent British Rowing's safety
documents still instructing that shoe heels be able to rise to the level
of the lowest shoe-fixing screw in the stretcher. Such inanities also
prevail in may other countries.
The young man who had this so-narrow escape (in very cold water) may
well have strapped his feet in rather tightly (who knows, but if so, who
let him think that a good idea?). But had his heel lift been restricted
to 5cm, he would still have come straight out of his shoes. (I know
this because anything that I recommend I have previously exhaustively
tested - especially heel restraints).
It was only because the amount of lift on that stretcher followed
exactly that idiotic British Rowing recommendation, resulting in that
12cm of lift, that this sculler came so close to death. And it is only
by great good fortune that the club is not now facing an inquest into
his death.
Of course, on all past form British Rowing would, in that event, still
be actively blaming the victim :( .
Now, please will safety officers as a matter of the greatest priority
check _all_ heel restraints in every club & private boat in their club.
And if any are found (as most will be) to exceed that 5cm/2" of lift,
will they please heed this warning & take immediate action to replace
them with strong nylon cord ties, with the knots heat-sealed to prevent
their undoing or being undone.
Upside down in a boat is a rotten way to die.
Thank you -
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)
mruscoe
> [snip]
> But still we see bootlaces with pretty bows tied in them being supplied
> in new boats as so-called heel restraints. And still we have the (I have
> to say this) shameless idiots who invent British Rowing's safety
> documents still instructing that shoe heels be able to rise to the level
> of the lowest shoe-fixing screw in the stretcher. Such inanities also
> prevail in may other countries.
>
>
> It was only because the amount of lift on that stretcher followed
> exactly that idiotic British Rowing recommendation, resulting in that
> 12cm of lift, that this sculler came so close to death. And it is only
> by great good fortune that the club is not now facing an inquest into
> his death.
There was a comment on Talk Rowing a couple of years ago from an
umpire/divrep that a rule change to come more into line with the FISA
rules/guidelines had been suggested that year. I was waiting to see it
come through in the updated rules of racing, but it didn't happen.
Note: (I'm sure that Carl knows this already) FISA's Minimum Guidelines
for the Safe Practice of Rowing, published in 2005, recommended 5cm
maximum heel lift, but the change to the FISA Rules of Racing in 2009
was 7cm maximum.
LakeGator
I know this has been an ongoing issue in RSR but I have never heard of
any rationale from the governing bodies about why heel restraints
should be longer than 5 cm. Do they believe that that oars creatures
can extend their heels off the base farther than that to advantage at
the catch or end of drive?
I applaud Carl for his tenacity and professional focus on matters of
safety like this and buoyancy. The sports needs more professionals
like him.
Carl Douglas
Further to the above, my attention has been drawn to the current BR advice:
http://tinyurl.com/4d4ay8x
Its wording is a remarkably close copy of my own instructions, given at
various times here on RSR (imitation is, after all, the most sincere
form of flattery).
Maybe to be a bit different, they recommend using the hard to get & more
light-sensitive Dyneema, a spun polyethylene fibre. Does anyone know a
local store that stocks Dyneema cord? But 4mm braided nylon cord is
available in every decent hardware shop in the land and has fair light
stability? So I really worry that, guided by BR, the more anal tendency
will take this as an excuse to do nothing rather than be accused of not
doing it by the book.
And then BR commits the cardinal sin of repeating, as follows:
"5. The position of the knot should conform with the British Rowing
Rules of Racing - “the heel shall not be able to rise above the lower
fixing point of the shoe”."
But, as an afterthought, it adds:
"A good setting is to allow no more than 50mm clearance between the
stretcher and the sole at the heel."
So the dangerous nonsense comes first, while the sound advice is
relegated to a contradictory afterthought. They probably inserted that
lest someone with BR-approved long restraints drowns & questions are
then asked in court. Sorry, BR, but that just won't work - either to
preserve lives, or to save your sorry necks.
Nor does BR mention the need to protect heel restraints against chafing :(
BR's piece on heel restraints is, frankly, prolix. As well as being
defective, it wanders off into Wikipedian irrelevance in its ramblings
on light stability & Dyneema. (If, as they regurgitate, it loses so
much strength so quickly, why use it in a low-maintenance,
safety-critical role in an environment like rowing?) We all make wide
use of nylon & know what it is & does. What ever became of the KISS
principle, so vital in safety matters? It is by going into irrelevant
detail while providing confusing advice on key details that safety
literature fails.
Null points, BR
mruscoe
> [snip]
> And then BR commits the cardinal sin of repeating, as follows:
> "5. The position of the knot should conform with the British Rowing
> Rules of Racing - “the heel shall not be able to rise above the lower
> fixing point of the shoe”."
>
> But, as an afterthought, it adds:
> "A good setting is to allow no more than 50mm clearance between the
> stretcher and the sole at the heel."
>
> So the dangerous nonsense comes first, while the sound advice is
> relegated to a contradictory afterthought. They probably inserted that
> lest someone with BR-approved long restraints drowns & questions are
> then asked in court. Sorry, BR, but that just won't work - either to
> preserve lives, or to save your sorry necks.
>
Some mention of heel restraints in the council minutes - no detail
though. I wonder if anyone here knows what was going on?
MINUTES OF COUNCIL MEETING 09/06/2009
"G. Harris would take forward to FISA the Association’s concerns about
the positioning of bow balls and would ask the FISA Materials Commission
to reconsider the decision made with regard to heel restraints.
Following the recent World Cup it was the view of GB Rowing that the
proposals put forward by FISA Control were not workable."
DRAFT MINUTES OF COUNCIL MEETING 27/09/2009
"However, FISA did not wish to alter the current wording on the fixing
of heel restraints. M. Williams said that FISA Council had discussed
this; the Umpires Commission believed the new rule was working quite
well and that the change proposed by British Rowing would make the rule
harder to implement. The matter was still subject to further debate and
would be reviewed again in January."
glasgow...@yahoo.co.uk
>
> - Show quoted text -
Good discussion--although having been trapped under a boat with shoes
(larger than my size of feet) I will stick to my clogs.
By the way Carl--is there a non rotten way to die
Best wishes
George
sully
> Into our works today came a damaged stretcher from a 1x. It was not of
> our manufacture, I hasten to add, but I don't necessarily blame its
> maker for what happened.
Thanks, Carl. This winter I've resumed temp duty coaching at local
university where we use singles heavily (every day), checked the
rigs,
got us all correctly lit up, rowing on the right side, water tested,
but I
neglected to check heel restraints... (shakes head), the other clubs
I teach at it's all clogs in the singles, indeed I retro'd them into
every single for club use.
I think the rowing world would be well served by a quasi-clog, a
light clog with
a heel cup and tarsal strap that bolts into the footboards. Club
crews could order
those instead of shoes for those shells where there are huge size
differences in the bodies that step into the shells on a daily
basis, won't have to monitor the heel restraints (as heels lift out
of the heel cups every stroke), they'll be more sanitary,
safer, and won't negatively affect the stroke.
zeke_hoskin
Good for almost everybody. Those with duck-width feet and sensitive
sticky-out heels, such as myself, find one-size-fits-most clogs and
fixed heel cups to be disablingly uncomfortable. Converting old
running shoes for rowing use is trivial - a hole in the sole, a short
bolt and big washer, and plenty of rubber in the heel to run a length
of 7-mm nylon line through to tie to the footboards.
Carl Douglas
I'm with you, Zeke, & I'm with Sully too. The problem I have is with
narrow all or nothing perspectives. What are we comparing?
Shoes can be a complete nightmare, especially in club boats. The wrong
size or shape, soon falling apart, insanitary & stinking to high heaven,
with abused or absent heel restraints. Certain makes of shoe IMHO are
sold on style rather than function as few rowers have runners' feet and
many match Zeke's foot description. And they were first used (& for
well over 10 years thereafter) with not the slightest consideration of
safety & with nothing done to analyse the problems or make them safer.
Often they were installed out of self-deluding fashion consciousness.
Frequently, after heel restraints became common, they were incorrectly
installed, absent or plain messed up. Dead rowers give a new meaning to
the term "fashion victim".
Similarly, clogs of the old type did not work well for everyone. As in
how we tell folk to row, one limited & inflexible design cannot work
well for everyone - although clogs had very few of the disadvantages of
shoes, weighed less & lasted indefinitely. What was wrong with clogs
was that they were insufficiently adaptable. Almost universally they
were not adjustable for height, rake or splay, which was bound to leave
some users short-changed. But these were design limitations from
another era which could have been resolved but for the Gadarene rush
into shoes, then always fitted without heel restraints.
I wouldn't expect Zeke to fit into a "standard clog" any more than I'd
expect him to wear a standard size or shape of trousers or shirt. I
have real problems with buying shoes, because I've managed to retain
straight toes on rather square feet, including a big toe which does not
bend inwards to accommodate the almost invariable pointing of the normal
shoe's toe-box. I find most shoes excruciatingly uncomfortable & (as
those who know me will attest) have never been one to sacrifice comfort
for style, but the world at large simply goes with fashion and pays the
price of bunions in later life.
What I'd like to think is that we can preserve the obvious merits of the
standard clog while incorporating within it the necessary adjustability
to make even Zeke comfortable.
None of which excuses the plain stupidity of absent or incorrectly
installed heel restraints. Nor the folly of those at British rowing
whose confusing advice leads to the most dangerous of solutions - a
safety device which simply cannot work.
Cheers -
Charles Carroll
You may recall an innocent young girl asking a youthful suitor:”
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
But heel restraints!
Our two young lovers learned a very bitter lesson, didn’t they? They
found out soon enough what’s in a name. In Montague and Capulet never
the twain shall meet. Sadly there was more in a name than they ever
guessed. And I wonder. Is this what we, too, are finding out?
Heel restraints! Could any name be more misleading? More wrong? More
untruthful?
Ask yourself what is the function of these short cords that connect
the heels of the shoes to the stretcher?
Is their function to restrain the heel in the event of capsizing?
Or is it to release the heel?
The phrase “heel restraints” denotes purpose precisely opposite its
intended function.
These two short cords don’t restrain the heels in the event of
capsizing. They release the heels. And for this reason don’t they
deserve a proper name that denotes their true function? Certainly they
deserve almost any name but “heel restraints!”
“Heel releases” would do quite nicely. “Heel safety releases” would do
even better.
And maybe with a new name we wouldn’t see such folly as you have
described.
Warmest regards,
Charles
Charles Carroll
Apologies!
I meant to write: "The phrase “heel restraints” denotes purpose
precisely opposite its intended function. Is it any wonder their
function is so misunderstood?"
anatol...@abdm.co.uk
and minimalist lightweight racing kit we can't standardise on a better
solution for attaching feet into boats than nailing in a pair of
running shoes. No disrespect to anyone here, but a simple application
of a lightweight quick-release system (similar to cycling, but more
like cross-country skiing) would enable rowers to have their own shoes
and the safety issue could be intrinsic rather than rely on a fraying
piece of cord. The forces on a heel restraint from a rower in normal
motion and a rower struggling to extract himself from a boat are so
radically different, there should be no reason not to have a system
that is easy to release in emergency, but doesn't come undone whilst
rowing.
Clogs are fine, but they are not a system that would be favoured by
top-end racers so are unlikely to be popular among rowers all trying
so hard to better themselves.
Shimano have designed a system (http://www.rowingillustrated.com/
boards/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1684), but it still looks a little over-
complicated for general club use. Some testers have mentioned a
different 'feel' or balance point. It looks a little complex and over-
engineered, but it also looks safe. Maybe something like this will the
way forward once it has been through a few revisions?
Anatole
Carl Douglas
Anatole, beware needless complexity. It's like building a vast tunnel
down the Thames at mind-boggling cost to store human effluent, instead
of separating the crap & the water closer to the source, on a smaller,
more distributed scale & at lower overall cost. But bureaucrats love
complexity...
Shimano's system does work. So did Krew-Klips. I know this because
I've tested both. Both are based on standard cycle pedal clips. Both
require you to be a wearer of cycling shoes. The clips in Shimano's
system do not, for some reason, fit their SPD bike pedals. Both systems
are quite heavy.
All of which - including the switch from clogs to shoes - tells us more
about our obsession with complex technological solutions to simple
problems. This is neatly summed up by the apocryphal story of the NASA
ball-point pen. Zillions were spent by NASA to develop a pen which
would write under zero gravity; the Russians used pencils.
For nearly all rowers there was absolutely no problem with clogs. But
clogs were unexciting. A few rowers found clogs uncomfortable, for
perfectly good reasons which in the main were to do with them being set
conventionally at ~45 degrees to the horizontal. There were no builders
at that time prepared to make effective rake & height adjustable clogs.
So word got about that shoes (but still on fixed-rake boards, please
note) were the answer to the maiden's prayer. Track shoes, & sometimes
even much cruder tennis shoes, started being fitted, at first by
individuals in singles.
Which is where it started going badly wrong.
Rowing does not just under-report serious & fatal accidents. It
actively shuns & censors them. Don't ask me why decent humans act thus,
but we have seen that they do - & do so repeatedly. Especially where
there is no intra-sport reporting system. But even then they do.
So accidents happened. A few scullers died, trapped by their shoes.
But almost no one talked about it, or thought about it, or - incredibly
to me - even cared about it. The deaths of these crash-test dummies
were simply ignored (now wait for some fool to go all PC on me for
referring to dead scullers in that way....) or brushed under the
capacious official carpets.
I hardly know about it myself, until I started to dig. But one day
someone came in to order a boat & explained how he'd been trapped under
his wrecked single after being run down by a river launch. Built like
an ox, he ripped his stretcher apart in his panic & that's why he was
there for a new boat. I decided that neither he, nor I hoped anyone
else, should face this fate. And shoe-heel restraint cords were born
that day (is that better, Charles?).
But rowing is slow to learn. Ever more track shoes were fitted - as the
solution to a largely non-existent problem. So more rowers died, or had
very nasty accidents. And, rather than do the dead simple, passive
foot-release thing they saw in our boats, folk sought technological
complexity. Such as the ski-binding system, which held you firmly until
you curled up to press the release tab "Painted red so you can see it
underwater". Has anyone considered how hard it might be, having been
breathing hard & now upside down with lungs filling with water & in
growing panic, to look for & reach, in murky water & bad light, a red
button above your toe? or even to undo 3 Velcro straps when people have
already drowned because they couldn't get to undo a simple tied shoelace
in those circumstances. And never mind the bizarre thought of any of
the many with red/green colour blindness seeking a red button?
Then FISA, happily, woke up & mandated what I termed heel restraints.
Goody! Except that no one checked them, no one understood the settings
under which they would be sure to work, & people in official hats (&
rowers with brains in neutral, simply assumed that any old length of any
old stringy stuff was OK. Anyway, it never happens, they said.
And that's how we get to this week, when a young sculler nearly drowned
because his heel restraints allowed the 12cm of lift which British
Rowing's ludicrous safety document says is OK.
There are many ways in which to commit a murder.
Deliberate disinformation is the method most favoured by those in
official ties & blazers. Who are the same people who still tell
capsized scullers to swim to the unsupportive bow of their boat, i.e. as
far from the centre of buoyancy of their boat as it is possible to go.
And when that unsupported sculler drowns, in his last desperate struggle
in icy water to reach the bank, they publish on their official website a
blatant lie which blames him for causing his own death. Then they
privately agree to limit the amount of information put before the Coroner.
And such people still hold high office within British Rowing. Which is
why Rowsafe, BR's safety document, still contains such dangerous
garbage. And why its authors choose to lift & then complicate &
adulterate the sound safety advice of experts to whom they refuse to talk.
What is wrong with applying honesty & simple solutions to rowing safety?
John E
knot tying illustration directly from the instructions for our
adjustable length rowing shoes - no problem on this occasion but a bit
cheeky as they didn't ask permission!
With our shoes we give out (two) sets of heel restraints which are
made from rock climbing accessory cord and the advantage we believe
that material has over Nylon cord is that the knot stays tight without
being melted, which is what Carl rightly recommends with Nylon. As our
shoes adjust in size this just saves effort but with normal shoes a
melted knot makes shoes quite hard to swap.
On clogs, personally I never found them that comfortable and we
sometimes refer to our shoes as 'modern day clogs', which may explain
why they are becoming quite popular.
On clip in shoes, this has come and gone several times (Vespoli,
Krewclips and now Shimano and 2 or 3 others). The problem is that it
only makes sense if you convert the whole boat fleet in a club and a
cost of £70+ per seat that is never going to happen. If it did take
off you would also get the issue of having different systems in
different clubs and of making beginners buy shoes on day one, so
probably not a practical answer.
Active Tools Ltd.
Tel: +44 (0)1494 512487
mruscoe
> All of which - including the switch from clogs to shoes - tells us more
> about our obsession with complex technological solutions to simple
> problems. This is neatly summed up by the apocryphal story of the NASA
> ball-point pen. Zillions were spent by NASA to develop a pen which would
> write under zero gravity; the Russians used pencils.
I've been aware of most of the truth behind this urban myth for a long
time, but here's an interesting additional story
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM9YN7O0MD_index_0.html
"Seeing my astonishment, he told me the Russians have always used
ballpoint pens in space."
Carl Douglas
Casting some light on this is an anonymous posting some way down the
following page:
http://tinyurl.com/6bet5zl
as follows:
"If only the ARA had used the release of the new RowSafe document to
update the heel restraint rules in line with FISA's recommendations
(i.e. 5cm heel lift). The current rule is so sloppy that people can
present any old sh*t and try to get it passed, whereas 5cm requires you
to make some attempt to do it properly."
Does this suggest that Gary Harris was pulling yet another fast one by
advocating that FISA adopt the devious & deadly ARA heel "safety" rules?
Why do we not know in exact detail what were these views on heel
restraint that were being put to FISA at that time? Is rowing safety
not something fit to be openly discussed?
But note: this Harris is the same arrogant & conniving fool who told 2
Coroners he & the ARA (are they one & the same?) would ignore their
carefully considered safety advice after 2 UK rowers had needlessly died
(& both been falsely blamed by Harris & the ARA for causing their own
deaths).
That man is a stain on our sport.
Kit
This has been mentioned before, but I wonder whether the cleat part of
cycling shoes could be fitted to the bottom of a set of C2 shoe rests,
the sort they use on ergs? Quick-release, cheap to install and
maintain, use your own shoes.
Sandy Sorlien
On the issue of people being trapped in their shoes/clogs and
drowning, and of heel restraints in general, as a novice I hope you
will forgive me a couple of basic questions. I mean, really basic.
1) Why do our feet have to be restrained at all? We are not using the
shoes or velcro straps to pull the boat under us, are we? (Maybe we
are; I'm just not really aware of it.)
2) Why does a governing body care if one's heels come up? I'm being
taught not to pull them up much, if at all, because it is not the most
powerful drive technique to start pushing off one's toes.
In erg class we have been practicing erging without the straps, and to
me it doesn't seem much different. The seat moves forward by gravity,
the tracks being slightly elevated, no?
Thanks for any observations/corrections on the above.
Cheers,
Sandy
Walter Martindale
Sandy,
Boats and ergs are not the same. Ergs sit on the ground - some
"better" ones move back and forth under you or have moving bits that
move back and forth while the rails and other stuff stay in place, but
boats work differently.
You do actually pull the boat bow-ward with your feet during the
recovery. It doesn't take much force, so people (most people) think
that they are moving their bodies (each person only has one body...)
sternward on the slides. When you take your blade(s) out of the water
- if you sit at the release position with your blade(s) feathered and
don't do a recovery, the boat slows down - gradually - until you
stop. The resistance to your forward motion (toward the finish line
is forward in boating terms) comes almost entirely from the water, in
the form of various kinds of drag - the shape of the boat pushing
water out of the way, the movement of the boat through the water
making "drag" because of the surface of the boat passing through the
water, and the movement of the boat creating waves. If you disregard
wind (say it's a tailwind), the only resistance to motion is from
water.
Look outside the boat at the water going past your boat next time -
you'll probably see that when you're rowing, the boat (and you) are
still going toward the finish line during the recovery. Now - if
you're going toward the finish line, and the boat is going toward the
finish line, even though you're seeming to move sternward on the boat
- isn't it likely that the boat is moving past you/faster than you?
(it is - there are many places that you can check to see that the BOAT
moves fastest during the mid-recovery). Think for a moment - how can
the boat move faster during the recovery? Where are you attached to
the boat? Try to "wrench" the boat past you during the recovery with
your handle(s) - defeats the "relaxed grip during the recovery" we
tend to coach. Try to "roll down the sloped slides" - but the slope
in the slides is only enough to counter the pitching that happens to
the boat when you move your body mass to the bow during the drive.
Try to take your feet out of the stretcher and NOT use the heel cups
to pull your boat forward under you - not possible. Try with 'feet
out' to feel how the recovery is only possible by a light pulling
pressure with your feet in the heel cups.
Yes, you do pull the boat under you with your feet, so you do need to
be attached to the boat.
where there are shoes in the boat, you need SOME heel-lift, or your
heels will lift out of the shoes every stroke - and you may not get
back into them properly for the next drive, so the heels are "allowed"
to rise from the stretcher - if you're flexible, they don't come up
very much. If your stretcher is too steep and you're not flexible,
you'll have a lot of trouble. So - the heels are allowed to come up.
If you flip over, and you've been rowing very hard, it's not at all
easy to hold your breath, tuck up under the boat, and push your shoes
off your feet, so there has to be some system to ensure that your feet
will come out of the shoes - because of the hard rowing and (in cold
water) a "gasp" reflex that essentially fills your lungs with H2O and
other pollutants, so you only tie your shoes tight enough to stay in
them for rowing, and you make darned sure that the heels of your shoes
will be restrained fairly close to the foot plate, so that when you're
upside down in the water, your feet will easily come out of the
heels...
I can't speak for british rule makers.
Banged out in a hurry - no proof reading done...
W
Phil
I never do my shoes up - and my 'heel release mechanism' is set to
about an inch.... never needed any more than that.
Phil.
Carl Douglas
If you glued the sole of your shoe to the floor, put your foot into it
and then tried to pull your foot free, then if the shoe was a reasonable
fit you would not be able to do this without intervening by hand or
holding down the heel with your other foot. As you try to lift your
foot, the shoe's heel remains encasing your heel bone (calcaneus) &
however hard you try to pull on your foot, it hangs on.
If you want to get out of a shoe in a hurry, you will simply hold down
the heel with your other foot. That is the principle of the heel
restraint - a truly passive form of foot release
The shoe heel is an excellent device, designed expressly to prevent your
heel from lifting or sliding out spontaneously. And to row you do need
that heel, or your feet would fall straight out. When rowers use shoes
they are screwed under the ball of the foot to the stretcher. If the
shoe heel is free to lift without limit (no heel restraint) then the
rower has no means of escape unless, in the aftermath of any accident,
they can reach down & extract each heel in turn. Otherwise they will
remain trapped until rescued, or they will drown.
The heel cord or heel restraint, whatever we choose to call it, allows a
useful degree of movement of the shoes' heels before preventing the heel
from following your foot all the way up from the stretcher. Otherwise
the shoe would certainly trap your foot in the boat as the further a
shoe curls up in this process the tighter it holds the foot.
That's the reasoning behind the heel restraint. It works, & it's one of
the very few "just do it" elements in rowing. Everything else is to
some degree optional, but if you use rowing shoes, as described above,
then only a fool or someone sadly misinformed or ignorant would not have
strong, well set-up heel restraints. But there is huge ignorance across
our sport - just one instance of which became the starting point for
this thread.
HTH?
Sandy Sorlien
that 90% of the time I row in singles that do not have shoes, just
heel cups and velcro straps. I haven't been aware of pulling with
them, but from your description it must be something like the cyclist
in toe clips or proper cycling shoes being able to pull up as well as
push down on the pedals. I can't test this in a boat now because we
have been iced in for a month, but will try rowing "feet out" in
spring and see how it doesn't work!
Sandy
Carl Douglas
Sandy -
Rowing with feet out does work - but only as an exercise. You can't do
it when rowing full pressure, full length or at higher ratings. And no
one wins races rowing feet out.
Feet out is an artificial trick which carries performance penalties. It
is only possible because when you do it you keep (& have to keep) enough
downforce on your feet to prevent your heels from lifting out of the
heelcups. To do this you shorten your finish & layback to keep your
weight distribution that way, otherwise you'd roll over backwards at the
finish as everyone else ROTFLAO.
Provided the down-force on your heels matches or exceeds the pull
required to drag you back towards front-stops, then since the heel-trap
angle in a fixed stretcher is about 45 deg, & steeper by a fair bit in
shoes with or without lifting heels, your heels will not lift out. At a
low rate that will mean <7-8kg (<4kg/9lb force per foot) & probably a
lot less. And that's how & why feet-out "works".
Cheers -
Chris A
> There was a comment on Talk Rowing a couple of years ago from an
> umpire/divrep that a rule change to come more into line with the FISA
> rules/guidelines had been suggested that year. I was waiting to see it
> come through in the updated rules of racing, but it didn't happen.
>
> Note: (I'm sure that Carl knows this already) FISA's Minimum Guidelines
> for the Safe Practice of Rowing, published in 2005, recommended 5cm
> maximum heel lift, but the change to the FISA Rules of Racing in 2009
> was 7cm maximum.
Probably me. The 7cm proposal was put forward by the DEN, FIN, NOR and
SWE federations to the extraordinary rule change congress in 2009.
FISA council suggested 5cm instead. The Nordic prposal was withdrawn
and the FISA wording accepted but with 7cm as the limit rather than
5cm. There were then IIRC discussions between FISA and the ARA.
The ARA Council before this congress reported "It was agreed that we
should adopt the FISA heel measurement (either 5cm or 7cm) and that
this should be discussed and agreed with the Umpires Commission whose
umpires would be administering the checking at Control Commission."
The ARA council subsequent to this congress reported "The Chairman had
met with the NUC who had debated the recommendation from FISA
regarding heel restraint heights. The problem however was in defining
an appropriate measuring process given the numerous types of
footplate. At the FISA Congress however no decision had been taken
because of the problems surrounding the actual measuring process. The
next FISA meeting would follow up this and a decision made."
At the September 2009 ARA Council was reported [N.B. the Congress
referred to here is the ordinary annual one] "the present ARA position
on heel restraints is recommended. It was agreed that further
education was needed regarding the maintenance and height of heel
restraints.
In November 2009 this "The British position had been put to the FISA
Congress i.e. that Control Commission accept heel restraints up to
level with the fixed point of the shoe and that bow balls should
protect the forward point of the
bow. FISA were presently accepting a height of 7cm, but the practice
of measuring was presenting problems and different interpretations
were being applied... Heel restraints should emphasize their
effectiveness when much shorter
than required at Control Commission"
So as you can see much toing-and-froing from the original proposals.
As my index finger is exactly 7cm long I have no problems in measuring
it at international regattas.
JD
cleat part of cycling shoes could be fitted to the bottom of a set of
C2 shoe rests, the sort they use on ergs? Quick-release, cheap to
install and maintain, use your own shoes. "
While the notion of a universal clog is a good idea, for God's sake,
do not install Concept 2 plastic stretchers! They are designed to hold
onto the heel of a shoe, the sole of which fits into a notch in the
heel of the stretcher. Therefore, they are sometimes tricky to extract
oneself from on the erg, let along upside down in cold water. Even a
heel strap will not ensure you will get out, yet I have seen them
installed in a few training boats in the states.
And do not use track shoes. Rowing shoes, with velcro and a looped
string instead of laces, allow the rower the loosen things with a
quick tug to the top of the shoe.
After an incident in cold water here a year ago, I am in agreement
that the 3" lift that USRowing officials check for upon the launching
of shells at regattas is still too long. 2" (5cm) is better. We had an
8 slam on the brakes and go over and bow, whose strap was 3" long
broke the phenolic shoe plate (another good idea vs aluminum) to get
out. It took him about 5 seconds to get his head up, but that was too
long for me. Part of the reason is that the soft-soled rowing shoes
twist, especially when the rower is laboring to get himself up and
sideways to the surface. Not enough tension is put on the heel to get
the foot out.
JD
Carl Douglas
What a mess these pompous, ignorant people have created. One cannot
rationalise what they might wrongly term their "logic".
At present, BR's Rowsafe gives completely contradictory advice: either
the heel may rise to the level of the lower fixing bolt (the position of
which they presumably believe to be a God-given value??); or it may rise
7cm from the stretcher. Well, boys & girls, which is it to be?
And they claim (on what grounds?) that it is hard to measure a rise of
5cm, so they want it no less than 7cm. If they can't measure 5cm, how
do they measure 7 cm? Indeed, how do they even measure "level with the
bottom fixing bolts"? Any fool can make a very simple block or stick as
a go/no-go gauge for a 5cm heel rise - cut it to size, shove it under
the shoe heel &, if it is sloppy, shorten the heel restraint until there
is a good fit. So why didn't these extraordinarily inept folk bother to
ask anyone or, better still, why didn't they ask me, who originated the
heel tie for safe, passive foot release.
At least they are consistent. They refused, point blank, ever to
discuss shell flotation with anyone competent in that matter. And they
refuse to talk to anyone competent on heel restraints. As a direct
result they make dangerous idiots of themselves, yet again.
So, British Rowing, how is it "difficult" for any lay person to measure
the exact distance between a shoe heel & where that heel hits the
stretcher? A blind man could do it, & a sighted fool could also do it,
but members of ARA Council can't do it! What, then, is their problem -
& doesn't this disqualify these ludicrous folk from their self-appointed
safety roles, just as uncorrected defective vision disqualifies them
from driving?
But this is the same bunch of wallies who told FISA it didn't understand
shell flotation, now trying to persuade FISA that heel restraints are a)
hard to measure & b) ought to be an imprecise length which is harder to
measure & utterly dangerous to life in an accident.
And then, if I read aright, they go on to say:
"Heel restraints should emphasize their effectiveness when much shorter
than required at Control Commission"
What exactly does that particularly daft sentence mean?
What a disastrous way to run rowing safety.
Richard du P
these perennial discussions, indeed I might without much persuasion
share some of those feelings.
I've another driving force - embarrassment. I'm a British-Rowing-
licensed umpire, probably [the powers that be in the land have been
sitting on my renewal application for some months now, so my licence
may be about to go pearshape, or this might just be wholly
uncharacteristic inefficiency]. Or as some would say, a blazerato -
yes I do it in a blazer and tie; I think uniform can be quite helpful.
Personally, when I'm out there being harangued by a school coach,
usually in front of his young charges, I'd love to be able to apply,
and justify .....
- 1] a standard for hull buoyancy which does NOT vary depending on
whether or not the boat was built with buoyancy compartments [and yes,
as treasurer of a small club, I have pressed and paid for the
"retrofitting" of an VIII]
Would a "plate" be good enough, failing that, the presence in an VIII
or a IV of buoyancy compartments all in sound condition?
[to boggle the minds of readers outside England and Wales, we are
charged to check "the integrity of any buoyancy compartments", with an
inference that you can't check what isn't there; you may feel that the
status of nine 16-year-olds in an octuple sculler, going on to a
multilane course in dirty weather, in the school's oldest boat,
without buoyancy compartments, and far too old for a plate, is to say
the least interesting ..... and it has happened to me]
- 2] a objective measurable standard for the range of heel movement of
shoes.
If the Sport were to say "five centimetres max between end of heel and
base plate", I will undertake to check whether the tie is sound - not
so long ago, the coach of a junior double accused me of pulling so
hard that I lifted the boat; how hard does he think the young woman
would struggle under water? - I will judge the distance by eye, I'll
probably be too lenient up to 5.5cm, and I'll carry a Five Centimetre
Thing in my pocket for the Really Hard Cases.
Or the Sport might on thorough consideration - eg expert evidence from
competitors and their coaches that more than 5cm is REALLY
necessary????? - specify another measurable standard.
The "lowest fixed point" is harder to define and discuss in the
boating area, particularly for those of us who believe it's quite
unnecessary for human rowers, and FAR too sloppy to save lives.
JD has reminded us that VIIIs do turn over. I wonder how long it would
take the master of the vessel - or the adult in charge of a junior
crew - to count the heads in the water, to be satisfied that no-one
was still out of sight wrestling with a shoe?
It's all been said before, also that competitive events have organised
safety cover. What was the condition of that boat last Thursday
evening, alone on a river somewhere?
Taking the history, and the personalities, and the feelings out of it,
is there good objective reason NOT to agree a 5 cm rule? Can we hear
from the other side?
Richard du P
Carl Douglas
> I fully understand that anger and related feelings can run high in
> these perennial discussions, indeed I might without much persuasion
> share some of those feelings.
>
> I've another driving force - embarrassment. I'm a British-Rowing-
> licensed umpire, probably [the powers that be in the land have been
> sitting on my renewal application for some months now, so my licence
> may be about to go pearshape, or this might just be wholly
> uncharacteristic inefficiency]. Or as some would say, a blazerato -
> yes I do it in a blazer and tie; I think uniform can be quite helpful.
> Personally, when I'm out there being harangued by a school coach,
> usually in front of his young charges, I'd love to be able to apply,
> and justify .....
Haven't you just blown your chances of licence renewal, Richard, by
daring to question to wisdom of your lords & masters? I doubt they'll
even bother to send you off to a collective for re-education.
>
> - 1] a standard for hull buoyancy which does NOT vary depending on
> whether or not the boat was built with buoyancy compartments [and yes,
> as treasurer of a small club, I have pressed and paid for the
> "retrofitting" of an VIII]
But who measured & quantified the flotation performance of that boat?
My experience tells me that, with one exception, those who have offered
such services would be unable to compute or validate this. Something
about having the right qualifications for the job.
> Would a "plate" be good enough, failing that, the presence in an VIII
> or a IV of buoyancy compartments all in sound condition?
A "plate"? Would that be a very large, low-density plate, set low in
the boat & displacing a few 100 kilograms? I'd like to see one of those.
> [to boggle the minds of readers outside England and Wales, we are
> charged to check "the integrity of any buoyancy compartments", with an
> inference that you can't check what isn't there; you may feel that the
> status of nine 16-year-olds in an octuple sculler, going on to a
> multilane course in dirty weather, in the school's oldest boat,
> without buoyancy compartments, and far too old for a plate, is to say
> the least interesting ..... and it has happened to me]
Back to the business of appropriate qualifications, then. I'm a
chartered engineer, & probably not too inept at pipe-fitting either, but
by law I'm not allowed to connect up a gas pipe in my own home - I have
to engage a gas-fitter. There are trailer towing tests. Coaches now
have to be expensively trained, yet still we get too many lasting
injuries of young people under instruction. Umpires are examined before
being let loose with bell, book, blazer, tie & flags. Yet it's
considered OK for someone with zero relevant experience, & maybe even a
few wholly misguided opinions which ought never to be allowed loose
outside the club bar, to self-certify a 60ft craft (which might be a
decaying old hulk) to carry 9 young lives across choppy water?
>
> - 2] a objective measurable standard for the range of heel movement of
> shoes.
> If the Sport were to say "five centimetres max between end of heel and
> base plate", I will undertake to check whether the tie is sound - not
> so long ago, the coach of a junior double accused me of pulling so
> hard that I lifted the boat; how hard does he think the young woman
> would struggle under water? - I will judge the distance by eye, I'll
> probably be too lenient up to 5.5cm, and I'll carry a Five Centimetre
> Thing in my pocket for the Really Hard Cases.
>
> Or the Sport might on thorough consideration - eg expert evidence from
> competitors and their coaches that more than 5cm is REALLY
> necessary????? - specify another measurable standard.
Whence cometh the expertise, & the evidence? Who judges the judges?
How to weed out the "experts" who think that next-to-no restraint will
do fine? And what about the craven compromisers, those who will always
settle for the curate's egg but somehow want to be in on the
decision-making?
> The "lowest fixed point" is harder to define and discuss in the
> boating area, particularly for those of us who believe it's quite
> unnecessary for human rowers, and FAR too sloppy to save lives.
Amen to that.
>
> JD has reminded us that VIIIs do turn over. I wonder how long it would
> take the master of the vessel - or the adult in charge of a junior
> crew - to count the heads in the water, to be satisfied that no-one
> was still out of sight wrestling with a shoe?
They also sink, & such sinkings have killed quite a number of rowers.
>
> It's all been said before, also that competitive events have organised
> safety cover. What was the condition of that boat last Thursday
> evening, alone on a river somewhere?
Organised safety cover should not be there to pluck kids out of inverted
boats under which they're trapped by defective or missing heel
restraints. A well-run event has rescuers to deal with genuine
accidents, not to save rowers & clubs from the consequence of their
using fundamentally unsafe equipment. No rower should _ever_ be in
danger of becoming trapped in an inverted boat - period.
>
> Taking the history, and the personalities, and the feelings out of it,
> is there good objective reason NOT to agree a 5 cm rule? Can we hear
> from the other side?
>
> Richard du P
Yes, that would be good. I really would welcome that. But I fear it'll
be a very long wait.
Cheers -
Chris A
> I fully understand that anger and related feelings can run high in
> these perennial discussions, indeed I might without much persuasion
> share some of those feelings.
>
> I've another driving force - embarrassment. I'm a British-Rowing-
> licensed umpire, probably [the powers that be in the land have been
> sitting on my renewal application for some months now, so my licence
> may be about to go pearshape, or this might just be wholly
> uncharacteristic inefficiency]. Or as some would say, a blazerato -
> yes I do it in a blazer and tie; I think uniform can be quite helpful.
> Personally, when I'm out there being harangued by a school coach,
> usually in front of his young charges, I'd love to be able to apply,
> and justify .....
>
>
Richard if you're waiting for the yellow card then you'll wait in vain
as they have been discontinued.
I think the fear (rather than any actuality) of litigation makes
people loathe to set limits. You let a boat on the water and after the
body is discovered and the boat recovered the heel restraint is found
to be 7.2cm against the limit of 7cm and you let it through... Apart
from that I cannot see what would stop BR setting a limit and I hope
that when RowSafe is revised it will have a limit.
With regards to non-buoyant boats I find someone repsonsible for the
crew remind them the boat will sink if filled with water and get them
to confirm if they are happy to go out in it in the conditions
prevailing. Conditions of course change though.
Carl Douglas
Chris -
"De minimis non curat lex". The law is not concerned with trifles. No
one will get banged up for that kind of oversight.
The point about a safety standard is to set the target not right at the
edge of workability - that would be dangerous folly. If a 7.2cm heel
lift proves fatal on one occasion, then 7cm is too long for everyone.
Set the target length that is a safe margin within the apparent longest
length that works reliably. That allows for stretch & human error.
Which is precisely why 7cm is dangerously long, & "heel to level of
lowest fixing bolt" is sheer madness.
Informed consent to use unsafe equipment may be OK for an individual on
his/her own, but the law will not condone it in a situation, such as a
crew, in which the weaker members are vulnerable to peer-group pressure
to row when their better judgement tells them not to use that boat. In
the choice between getting dropped from the crew & taking "a bit of a
chance", you know exactly which way most of us will go - out onto the water.
I think your post neatly defines the ill-informed & frankly dishonest
attitudes that guide BR on rowing safety. The hysterical hiding behind
"the law" as reason for doing nothing or worse than nothing simply will
not work, but it will injure & kill.
carl
coach
responsibility for boat safety must rest on the coaches and club
management.
Many crews will have clocked up over 200 hours of rowing training
before they arrive at their first regatta of the season.
Yes umpires can check boats and stop those that do not meet the
required standard from racing.
Yes it would be useful if there was a clear benchmark and a tool for
measuring it.
Surely the period of highest risk is not at a regatta, that has a well
organised safety plan, but during those long and lonely winter
outings, when the wind, rain and snow is beating down.
Like most officials and coaches within our sport, I am not paid to get
cold and wet on a river bank. I do it because, having reached my sell
by date as an athlete, I want to remain actively involved and put
something back into the sport. The rules, codes of practice and other
regulations need to be worded and set out in such a manner as to
encourage volunteers.
If we are loaded up with too much red tape , we will retreat to the
golf course or some other activity.
Carl Douglas
Golf!? A good walk spoiled. Pah!
OK. Would folk out there like us to make them a neat heel height gauge?
Please let me know and we will make a few at a price easily affordable
to impoverished clubs & coaches.
The last thing any of us wants is to overburden those who give too
freely of their time to make competitions run smoothly & fairly.
Instead of bowing to BR's wet & delinquent excuses for inaction &
confusion, let's get heads together to see what would make life easier
for those charged with checking equipment & safer for its users.
I think we need to formulate simple, unambiguous tests & testing kit for
heel safety. That might remove the potential for sheer unpleasantness
to which RduP made passing mention. How simple it could be: "These are
the standards, this is the agreed kit, that is the result, now please go
& put it right &, BTW, the regatta committee will be happy to sell you
the necessary bits of cord, & lend you a gas lighter & one of Carl's
height gauges (on payment of a deposit), with which to set the height &
weld the knot which sets the length of the heel restraints.
Isn't that what reasonable folk would do?
So, we are willing to apply ourselves to such problems but it is up to
those needing this sort of help to get in touch and tell us what they
want. No point in making mouse-traps if the home owners don't find
rodent infestation a problem.
Cheers -
Carl
anatol...@abdm.co.uk
are expensive, heavy and difficult to maintain. Bad enough on a bike!
But I remain amazed that no 'minimalist' solution can be found that
would be an improvement on cheap shoes that fall to bits in days in a
club environment. Maybe the solution is staring us in the face -
anyone for new "super pro tec-clogs"?
Anatole
James HS
>those needing this sort of help to get in touch and tell us what they
>want. No point in making mouse-traps if the home owners don't find
>rodent infestation a problem.
We have mice - big time and I would welcome an easy way to assess heel
restraint distance ..... even though I set my own I would find it
useful.
As club CWSA (following on from Anatole's hard work) I am amazed how
disinterested boat users - rowers, launch drivers etc are in some
basic safety stuff, heel restraints, kill cords, pfc's as if it will
not happen to them. Watching people make judgements about weather/
water conditions is illuminating as everything is about getting an
outing, and nothing about the safety of the outing, or even the
quality of the water for that outing.
This is especially bad on the Tideway where the conditions are often
bad, and we 'pride' (?) ourselves on challenging them!
So if someone can come up with a simple pass/fail mechanism I would
happily spend a few weekends at the launching of our crew boats to do
a spot umpire job on boats leaving the compound ....... if it can be
linked to a loud claxon all the better!
James
Kit
> Kit wrote "This has been mentioned before, but I wonder whether the
> cleat part of cycling shoes could be fitted to the bottom of a set of
> C2 shoe rests, the sort they use on ergs? Quick-release, cheap to
> install and maintain, use your own shoes. "
>
> While the notion of a universal clog is a good idea, for God's sake,
> do not install Concept 2 plastic stretchers! They are designed to hold
> onto the heel of a shoe, the sole of which fits into a notch in the
> heel of the stretcher. Therefore, they are sometimes tricky to extract
> oneself from on the erg, let along upside down in cold water. Even a
> heel strap will not ensure you will get out, yet I have seen them
> installed in a few training boats in the states.
>
Apologies, I didn't make it clear but I was trying to suggest
attaching them to the bottom of the whole assembly, so the flexible
shoe holder + the underlying mount all comes away in the event of a
capsize. It may well be that the C2 version is not suitable for this
without modification anyway, but the principle (one's own shoes
attached to a mounting which comes away under tension) is worth
investigating IMHO.
Phil
> URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk(boats) &www.aerowing.co.uk(riggers)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have the answer - velcro 'cramp-ons' for one's own trainers and
velcro pads on the stretchers! No more shoes in boats.
Phil.
Chris A
rational limit why there is not a limit. Certainly the current limit
is very difficult to judge
Carl Douglas
They don't fear it, Chris. They use it as a facile excuse for not doing
the job right. And this applies from the very top down.
Only the inept, the self-deluding & the irresponsible seek out worthless
excuses for not doing the safety job properly. In industry a similar
disregard for & negligence in the regulation & application of safety
procedures can bring criminal prosecution. Why not in an organised
sport with an admitted duty of care?
When something goes wrong, as it could have done for the club whose
young member so nearly drowned through grossly over-long heel
restraints, it is too late to complain "no one told us", or that you
didn't understand the law. Ignorance of that kind is not excused.
You are a member of BR's Council & a regular on RSR. I know that a
number of Council members are RSR lurkers. So you & they are well
informed on the need for effective heel restraint rules. BR's executive
operates under the oversight & governance of Council. So how did BR end
up generating the gobbledegook on heel restraints which led to a
youngster sculling with 12cm of heel lift & nearly losing his life as a
direct result? Does no one on Council dare to offend the Exec? Are
they all, as with certain other institutions with similar constitutional
arrangements, flattered to be on Council & thus feel the need to bend to
the will, however mad, of the self-perpetuating Exec?
Carl
Henry Law
> Taking the history, and the personalities, and the feelings out of it,
> is there good objective reason NOT to agree a 5 cm rule? Can we hear
> from the other side?
Our club safety card clearly says 5cm. We can protect our own, even if
all the others have a death wish.
--
Henry Law Manchester, England
Richard du P
Perhaps I missed something; if so, none of the UK contributors here
put me straight!
I've received today, from "British" Rowing, the Umpires' handbook
2011.
Wrapped round it is an A4 landscaped sheet on Heel Restraints,
apparently "Issued: Nov 2010 - V1
Am I alone, in being totally ignorant of this these last five months?
I'll leave those better qualified to pick at the specification for the
double length of 3mm marine cord, breaking load 400kg, secured ring on
shoe, close-fitting hole in the stretcher board, overhand knot, ends
flamed off ..... but it does give me that déjà vu feeling!
The only two points I'm not entirely comfortable with are
a] an explicit recommendation "to repair worn-out or broken heel
restraints with identical [or manufacturer-approved] materials. ....
When this is not possible ....." guidance follows for the marine cord.
I'm not sure this is good enough for all "worn-out" structures? For
instance, I think there are still English boats with those perforated
leather straps, secured to the underside of the stretcher? Should we
understand that they are seen as Good Design?
b] Fixing instruction 5 reads in entirety .....
'The position of the knot should conform with the British Rowing Rules
of Racing - "the heel shall not be able to rise above the lower fixing
point of the shoe". A good setting is to allow no more than 50mm
clearance between the stretcher and the sole at the heel.'
Amen I say, to the second half of that ..... but is there really
entrenched opposition to bringing the Rule in line with the
Instruction?
Tell me if I'm boring you
Richard du P
Carl Douglas
Tedious, but not really boring.
A further repeat demo of the incoherence & ineptitude of British
Rowing's safety management. Ridiculously detailed specifications mixed
with completely laissez faire "Well, try this or, tell you what, just
make up your own mind & bodge it".
It's a mess. They just don't understand safety, do they?
Safety regulation absolutely demands simplicity & clarity, coupled with
intelligent explanations of _why_ you do & don't do certain things, plus
defined boundaries for what is, & what is not, acceptable. Whoever
wrote that lot is an inept fool. Worse still, what they have written
could kill.
What about accident reporting & database visibility?
Not every rower is a Chemical Engineer (I still am) so they won't see
the April issue of "The Chemical Engineer" magazine which focusses on
health & safety. That's a pity.
On the cover is the strap-line "Lessons learned, not lessons lost",
which is pretty much the inverse of what present BR safety management
achieves. Inside there are a number of relevant articles, including a
short one by Trevor Kletz, who years ago single-handedly started an
industry-wide H&S cooperation which was so effective in reducing its
accidents.
One among many sets of vital points which Kletz makes is:
1. Moral: If we have information that might prevent another accident,
we have a duty to pass it on
2. Pragmatic: If we tell others about our accidents, they may tell us
about theirs
3. Economic: We would like our competitors to spend as much as we do
on safety
4. The industry [for which we can read sport] is one: Every accident
affects its reputation & may lead to greater regulation.
The same issue carries an account of the official investigation & report
into the massive Buncefield fuel storage depot explosion & fire in 2005
(UK readers may remember this - causing the biggest seismic shock in S.
England for many a year). The report underlines the ineptitude of
overall safety management, the lack of coherent safety policies, even
between individual work shifts, & the lousy maintenance - all seemingly
based on the assumption that the worst could never happen. It talks of
the Swiss Cheese approach, where all it takes is for something to go
horribly wrong is for all the holes to line up.
Safety should only be managed by people who understand what safety
management entails. British Rowing thinks & acts otherwise, acting as
if smoke & mirrors will do just as well.
TidewayUmpire
> On 04/04/2011 13:47, Richard du P wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 11:53 pm, Henry Law<n...@lawshouse.org> wrote:
> >> On 10/02/11 10:08, Richard du P wrote:
> >>> Taking the history, and the personalities, and the feelings out of it,
> >>> is there good objective reason NOT to agree a 5 cm rule? Can we hear
> >>> from the other side?
>
> >> Our club safety card clearly says 5cm. We can protect our own, even if
> >> all the others have a death wish.
> >> Henry Law Manchester, England
>
> > Perhaps I missed something; if so, none of the UK contributors here
> > put me straight!
>
> > I've received today, from "British" Rowing, the Umpires' handbook
> > 2011.
> > Wrapped round it is an A4 landscaped sheet on Heel Restraints,
> > apparently "Issued: Nov 2010 - V1
> > Am I alone, in being totally ignorant of this these last five months?
>
> > I'll leave those better qualified to pick at the specification for the
> > double length of 3mm marine cord, breaking load 400kg, secured ring on
> > shoe, close-fitting hole in the stretcher board, overhand knot, ends
> URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk(boats) &www.aerowing.co.uk(riggers)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I quote from British Rai...sorry British Rowing's ' Plus+ Heel
Restraints - Fixing point 3 & 4'
3. Both ends of the cord to pass through a close fitting hole in the
stretcher board that is sufficiently far away from the edge as to be
fit for purpose.
4.The two protruding ends to be tied as one piece in an 'overhand'
knot (see Diagram)
The knot must be large enough not to pass back through the hole in the
stretcher'
So the NGB [?Not Good Blokes?] are advising users to rely on a SINGLE
knot in some marine cord NOT to pull through a hole when it is under
stress.
On day one, when the stretcher is new and dry and hole nice and tight,
perhaps; but two years down the line when the hole in some soggy
marine ply has become worn and enlarged?
I dont think so.
What about passing ONE end of cord through the hole, which is of
course "sufficiently far away from the edge as to be fit for purpose"
and AROUND the edge of the stretcher and then gather in the other end
of the cord and tie the overhand knot?
No way that would 'pass back' !!
Sorry about the caps chaps - not really shouting.
And have you seen the section on Heel Restraint Material??
We cant get competitors to read [ & if they do to understand] Regatta
Instructions let alone the bits about 'UV degeneration' and '400kg
cord that has degraded by UV/abrasion to 50% in three years (200kg)
with a 50% saftey factor'
Rob Collings
The document (rules? guidelines? don't know what to call it) is online
at http://www.britishrowing.org/upload/files/RowSafe/RowSafePlus_HeelRestraints.pdf
The degradation specification is a little odd - last time I looked in
B&Q they sold perfectly good cord but didn't specify UV performance.
The best you get is "UV resistant". More confusing than helpful.
They seem to have their safety factors and margins all confused - IIRC
the specified safety factor of 50% means that the cord would fail at
50% of design loading. With the figures they give: design load = 100
kg, breaking load = 200 kg, margin = (200-100)/100=100%, safety factor
= 200/100=2. Whatever the terminology, 50% doesn't come into it unless
you turn it all upside down. Proper terminology should be used
properly.
There are plenty of scenarios where a two-teir safety requirement
(must do at least this, should do at least that) is OK, but I don't
think guidance to laypersons is one of them. If this was made simpler,
it would be a good guidance note.
Rob.
Henry Law
> And have you seen the section on Heel Restraint Material??
> We cant get competitors to read [& if they do to understand] Regatta
> Instructions let alone the bits about 'UV degeneration' and '400kg
> cord
But surely you realise that the point of these documents is _not_ to
inform; it is to establish a defensible position on the part of the
issuing authority. (It's not just BR who do this, it must be said: it's
part of the public face of corporate culture.)
"We told you, so we are not to blame if you didn't do what we said - to
the letter and to the last decimal point of the UV resistance and
breaking strain."
The fact that it's impossible to comply with these requirements, either
because you can't understand them or because normal shopping mortals
can't obtain heel restraint cord made of pure unobtainium, is immaterial.
I might say, though, that having BR issue specifications of what to do
and what to use is actually an improvement, leave aside the objections
to how they've done it. So much of "RowSafe" is even more defensive,
consisting of diktats on what to achieve without any assistance whatever
in achieving it.
Anthony
knot? It is a bigger knot (so will not pass through a larger hole than
is the case with the overhand knot), and will not jam, so can be
undone without cutting the cord. And a double figure of eight knot can
be used if an even larger knot is required.
On another point, don't all knots reduce (sometimes by as much as
half) the strength of the rope in which they are tied? Is this taken
into account in BR's calculations?
Anthony
TidewayUmpire
Anthony,
"Isn't a figure of eight knot superior as a stopper to an overhand
knot?" - yes
'And a double figure of eight knot can be used if an even larger knot
is required' - yes again
'don't all knots reduce (sometimes by as much as
> half) the strength of the rope in which they are tied?' - in rope, and probably anything made from strands ?or filaments? Carl will know or find out :) yes, don't know about marine cord
Carl Douglas
I don't know exactly, but others do:
http://www.caves.org/section/vertical/nh/50/knotrope.html
Their tests look to be well done & thorough, & expose the yawning gap in
integrity between those who care about information which directly
affects human safety in a sport & the bunch that we have to deal with in
rowing.
This sort of information is one of many reasons why you need an ample
safety factor on cordage, just as you do an any safety-critical gear.
Since BR won't & can't do it, I'll try to answer factually some of the
obvious concerns:
1. The only safe way to release a rower from bolted-in shoes is by a
heel restraint cord. The proper way to implement that restraint, & why,
needs to be defined, understood & obeyed.
2. Bolted-in rowing shoes have cupped heels which snugly fit the
rower's own heel. All shoes are made thus to ensure that, by enclosing
the heel, they hold the foot under all circumstances.
3. This is good in normal use but a fatal hazard in an accident since
it holds the rower so effectively to the boat that only manual
intervention can free them.
4. In an accident the scope for timely intervention is limited & often
beyond the ability of the rower, even if still conscious.
5. That the shoe heel must follow the foot creates a further block to
spontaneous release in emergency. The more the heel rises, the greater
the curve in the shoe's sole. As the sole curves, the foot is driven up
into the toe-box. To see this process, rest the back of one hand into
the palm of the other, palms up, & then close the fingers & palm of the
lower hand. Since the bones can't compress or extend, as the lower hand
closes the fingers of the upper hand slide out past the heel of the
lower hand. The result, for foot in shoe, is the foot becoming more
tightly jammed within the shoe. It is a self-locking system, & the more
you pull the tighter it holds.
6. The safe release, therefore, must spontaneously free the lifting
heel before this self-entrapping process can dominate.
7. Tests confirm that up to 50mm of lift does not materially impair
release by a heel restraint cord, Tests also confirm that going much
further than this can completely prevent spontaneous release. That is
the rationale for the 50mm/2" lift limit.
8. There is no evidence to suggest that, with a properly set up foot
stretcher angle, any rower requires or uses more than this indicated
amount of heel lift.
Now let me how best to fix the cord:
1. I've always advocated using a doubled length (out-&-back) of 4mm
braided Nylon cord. This has ample breaking load, way beyond what's
needed. It is easily available, compact, compliant, easy to tie & seal
& very durable. All cordage loses strength with time, exposure, use &
other causes of wear & tear, but this cord works well & gives an ample
safety margin.
[I recommended & used this cord many years before BR invented its daft
advice to use cords made of Unicorn Hair or similar rare, costly,
unobtainable & possibly unsuitable material. BR has not tested what it
recommends. Interestingly, its has the same breaking strain as the
Nylon cord I recommend, but is more vulnerable to UV degradation. Hmmm.]
2. To what are you fixing the cord? Does the shoe have a really secure
loop, remotely able to take the breaking stress of the cord? And how
strong is the attachment point on the stretcher? The strength of a
chain cannot exceed that of its weakest link.
3. If the shoe's loop is inadequate, drill 2 holes >10mm apart up
through the heel & pass the restraint cord through them. If the
stretcher is obviously going to fail under rather small loads, replace
it now.
4. It is perfectly sound & safe to pass both ends of the cord down
through a drilled hole in the stretcher that's just large enough to
accept them, & then to tie the protruding ends as one in a single thumb
knot. Check that the knot allows only 50mm of heel rise. Now you must
heat-sear the outer end of that knot in a very small flame - to just
melt the outer nylon surface & let you weld the melted resin surfaces
under the pressure of a wetted piece of metal. The knot cannot then
untie itself. And it will be so big that there no way can it pass back
through that hole.
5. Finally, it is well worth bonding the cord & knot to the stretcher &
into the hole, so that it cannot keep sliding & chafing as you row.
If any one has questions on the above, I'm happy to answer.
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
Chris A
http://www.worldrowing.com/mm//Document/General/General/12/64/12/GBRProposalsResponse09.11.2016_Neutral.pdf
Lucy
> I see that we (GBR) are proposing the FISA change to the old GBR heel restraint rule (which we've just changed).
>
> http://www.worldrowing.com/mm//Document/General/General/12/64/12/GBRProposalsResponse09.11.2016_Neutral.pdf
carl
I wrote the following to Chris late last night as I was so incensed by
the stupidity of this proposed rule change but wanted first to learn a
little more from him before deciding how to react. Having chewed it
over for almost a day, I don't think the words I used were adequately
caustic, so here are those words:-
This proposition is retrograde and disgraceful. 7cm is already too much
free movement. Now they want to return to their former (& ridiculously
dangerous) laissez-faire permission for the heel to rise to the level of
the lower fixing bolt.
I would suppose that whoever proposed this, and those in the GBR admin
who seconded it, have no experience of the adverse consequences -
leading to immediate entrapment - which can result from their proposed
arrangement. I do have that experience, having had to rectify the
stretcher of a lad who was trapped upside-down as the direct result of
the heels in his club's 1x being able to rise just as is now proposed.
Chris: exactly whose daft idea was this? Do they understand nothing
about the construction of the bones in the foot, or of the increasingly
inextricable interaction of the foot with the shoe's sole, heel cup and
toe box as the heel rises?
This seems to me no more than a fatuous back-door attempt by an ignorant
person to dispense with heel cords entirely, because at this
now-proposed length they will be, to all intents and purposes,
absolutely useless.
I've watched a sculler nearly drown at an international regatta solely
because he couldn't extract his feet & the launch had gone straight past
his inverted boat without a second thought. It was a chilling sight. He
was rescued only because the crowd saw what was happening & word thus
got back to the launch. I also know of a number of scullers (& even
rowers) who drowned precisely because they did not have heel cords. That
was why I devised the system, & I was the first to implement it.
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Email: ca...@carldouglasrowing.com Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
URLs: carldouglasrowing.com & now on Facebook @ CarlDouglasRacingShells
wmar...@gmail.com
Richard
> I see that we (GBR) are proposing the FISA change to the old GBR heel restraint rule (which we've just changed).
>
> http://www.worldrowing.com/mm//Document/General/General/12/64/12/GBRProposalsResponse09.11.2016_Neutral.pdf
It would be interesting to know who has come up with this suggestion. It's unlikely to be someone who's ever actually worked on Control Commission at an international regatta. Checking the current 7 cm rule is easy, quick and unambiguous. Checking the proposed new rule is open to all kinds of arguments. In any case, as I have reported previously, I suspect a considerable number of crews just undo their heel restraints on the water anyway. I'd introduce a rule that the cords have to be fitted in a way that makes them difficult to tamper with on the water; a neat and tidy bow is a bit of a give-away that the athletes are expected to be able to undo them easily. Doing random checks on the in-bound raft would be interesting.
Or ban fitted shoes (esp. lace-ups) altogether and use a modern clog system.
James HS
There must be some for such a proposal to be suggested?
James
martin...@gmail.com
Dyneema lines were favoured amongst kite fliers and I can testify that they will support 80+ kgs having been lifted on several occasions. they were reasonably resistant to abrasion. I had stunt kites where you would deliberatley cross and twist lines that were wet and covered with sand that did not cut through which did happen with a different type (can't remember name though)
i wouldn't want a cycling type arrangement (SPD) as I believe this could be dangerous. You van adjust the tension of the springs to allow differing release angles when you twist your foot.
They tend not to work that well with ill fitting shoe as I learnt to my embarassment at Holme pierrepoint. ( i was trying out spds for the first time and borrowed a pair of shoue 2-3 sizes too big. Came to a stop and twisted foot . it moved but did not release and I fell over sideways)
Also I am not sure (and wouldn't want to test) how easy it is to release your feet in good fitting shoes when you are upside down. It can be difficult enough if you crash your bike and are still clipped in but at least you are on dry (ish) land.
Two other bits
Carl - did you ever make those gauges?
And
Is there a good simple way of checking shoes cords and fixings. Not for height but general perishing. I've just been thinking the shoes in my single must be 10-15 years old at least and now wondering if the fixing on the heel where the cord attaches is still secure. I think it is rivetted through the heel.
carl
Please write and remind as to which gauges we were discussing? Have
been wrestling with a recalcitrant laptop, so brain is slightly frayed.
Don't you just love the Microsoft's instructions to refer to the
Internet when the problem is that the machine won't connect to Internet.
So much valuable time is wasted for non-geeks through the inherent
variability, fussiness & over-complexity of what could and should be
simply-usable tools. I've owned 1930s cars which were more reliable,
less pretentious, easier to use & simpler to maintain.
Which brings us to heel cords, so fasten your seat belts (hold on,
surely we don't need seat belts in cars & planes, do we?).
We (my firm) install heel cords made from a loop of 4mm braided Nylon
cord. The ends of the cords are joined by a fused knot, entrapped on
the under-side of a hole formed in the lower part of the stretcher board
& prevented from chafing by means of an elastomeric bond and seal. We
allow a 50mm maximum lift, which has never inconvenienced even 1 of our
clients (we fit these onto rake-adjustable stretchers). And it works!
Only for steering feet do we find a 10mm greater length desirable (but I
hate having to make that compromise & am working on changing that).
Despite my originating the ulta-simple heel cord system, & developing &
improving it while keeping it dead simple, not once have I been
contacted by the oh-so-superior blazerati to see if what they were
telling the public in the rules they'd just invented out of thin air
made even the slightest sense. So far, so damnably normal.
The essence of the Nylon cord used is that it is extremely strong,
endlessly durable & serviceable, does not rot, nor otherwise does it
deteriorate over the life of the shoes. And, importantly, it is
slightly elastic, which helps to ensure that the attachments at shoe and
stretcher (which must themselves be workmanlike, please note) are not
subjected to undue shock loadings.
Meanwhile a sector of the rowing public has perversely avoided/evaded
this vital safety device, arriving at regattas with every dangerous
pretence of heel restraints & none, while non-engineer commentators have
invented reasons for doing the simple thing in more complex ways. What
these folk find wrong with the KISS principle is beyond me.
Then, about a year or so ago, some tie-wearer at BR (without asking the
originator of the heel restraint system) decided he'd give heel
restraint cords his own particular flavour, specifying cords of the same
breaking strength as the nylon cords we advocate, but made of something
not available from your friendly hardware store, far less elastic than
Nylon cord, more readily degraded by sunlight & harder to form into a
secure knot. Why??
And now these be-blazered fiddlers with the lives of those whose safety
they're supposed to value have proposed that the rowing world lengthens
its heel cords (meaning those that self-opinionated rowers don't
furtively untie as soon as they've passed inspection) to the point at
which they are, as safety devices, worthless.
Unless you knew the past record of BR, & before that of its predecessor
the ARA, on rowing safety you'd think it impossible for a sentient being
to invent such stupidity. But, as an old friend & former Swiss
international once explained to me, "The official tie exists to prevent
the flow of blood to the brain".
martin...@gmail.com
The gauges you originally referred to would have been used to judge how high the heels came up.
I was wondering if they were a simple block 50 mm wide (but then where under the heel do you place it) or a wedge shape?
And thinking further on nylon v dyneema IIRC (been a long time since I flew my kites) although the dyneema is very strong it was very thin so any holes in the stretcher would need to be very narrow and the knot itself would be small so in practical terms nylon cord which you can easily handle and tie knots in has to be a better solution. Also as you say the nylon has some elasticity in it which Dyneema can't have as you do not want to be trying to control a 3m foil or bigger on a piece of stretchy stuff.
Perhaps BR safety committee can redo the capsize video themselves using properly fitting shoes and varying lengths of safety cord and see what happens. I know at 50+ with bulging discs I am no longer able to easily reach my feet so i want to know i can pull free when i tip over.
carl
> I see that we (GBR) are proposing the FISA change to the old GBR heel restraint rule (which we've just changed).
>
> http://www.worldrowing.com/mm//Document/General/General/12/64/12/GBRProposalsResponse09.11.2016_Neutral.pdf
>
Would I be right in guessing, from past RSR discussions on this same
topic (including early in 2011), that the person behind this specific
idiocy might be a certain Mr Harris, the guy who opposed other
significant rowing safety measures?
Cheers -
James HS
Thanks
James
Henry Law
on about something rotten when they feel it will get them off the hook
for something--is, essentially to factor the likelihood of something
occurring together with the consequences of its doing so.
Turning a boat over is a frequent occurrence, and the consequences of
getting the feet caught are life-threatening, the highest category. So
the risk must be effectively addressed.
When they've understood that, hit them with the coup de grace. The
third aspect of risk management is the cost-to-reduce. The cost of
reducing the risk of heels-caught-up is the cost of some nylon cord and
a few minutes' work.
Eberhard Nabel
Regionews.at reports on 22.10.2010:
........ The doctor of Linz General Hospital started in the afternoon with his single-seater from a boathouse in commercial port. On the way from the harbor basin towards the Danube came the misfortune which a worker noticed shortly after 16 o'clock.
"A few minutes later, the professional fire brigade came in and immediately went out with a dinghy to the rowing boat. The victim hung on the boat with his head down and was instantly recovered. Immediately began the resuscitation, but the man died shortly afterwards in the Linz General Hospital .........
Hope you can understand that
Eberhard
James HS
James HS
magnus....@gmail.com
Eberhard Nabel
The whole discussion on the length of heel restraints deals with the faulty design of fixed shoes. Why do I say so? When fixed shoes were made first perhaps nobody made any estimates what tensile forces arise between shoes and stretcher. In that very moment the only goal was to make the construction run. Naturally safety was no issue at that moment. Hence the shoes are fixed by bolts in a way, that perhaps 1 kN of force is not enough to tear a shoe off from the stretcher. This means the current shoe-stretcher system is not inherently safe – a severe issue. A system is called inherently safe if one does not need to use extra safety means like the heel restraints in our case.
Maybe the force on the join between shoe and stretcher during normal operation may be well below 100 N per shoe. So higher forces should lead to release the shoe from the stretcher. I do not know at what force a shoe is released in this FISA approved system: http://www.revolutionrowing.com/media/uploads/Clicko-Quick-Release-Information.pdf
but the system is inherently safe and works safely.
carl
> James I believe one of the main incidents which caused the Amateur Rowing Association (now British Rowing) to issue guidelines/rules for heel restraints was around 1988 when two GB national squad scullers, Debra Flewin (I knew her well) and Jo (can’t remember her name), hit a buoy whilst doing a piece in a double scull near Barn Elms, I think, and capsized. Jo’s feet came out straight away, but Debra’s feet stayed in her shoes. Jo tried to help out by twisting the boat to allow Debra’s face to get closer the water, but she was twisting the wrong way. In her efforts to get her mouth to the surface, Debra dislocated her knee, putting her in hospital for weeks.
>
At the Worlds in Dorney 2006, a German pair did that "lay back, I'm so
exhausted" trick at the end of their race. That's not a smart, as you
lose the horizon you need for balance. Their boat rolled over. One guy
was trapped in the inverted boat by his feet.
This crew had form for rowing either without heel cords, or with heel
cords untied, or with cords that were ludicrously over-length.
Anyway, a big panic. And clearly much official embarrassment, as
supposedly their kit had been subject to official scrutiny. A launch
zipped over to the rescue.
The rescuers were not, however, fully in thinking mode. They decided
the man was trapped by his oar-handle.
It is actually impossible for upward pressure from an oar-handle to trap
a man in an inverted boat. Even if you try to roll the boat by lifting
his rigger you have only the very small force at the handle due to his
oar's weight acting at a short distance from the oarlock, & to trap the
guy you'd have to hold the blade down while lifting the rigger, which
does beggar belief. A competent rescuer who feared the handle was in
some strange way trapping the man would simply lift the blade & swing
the oar forward, parallel to the boat.
In this case, however, the rescuers decided they had to remove the oar
from the oarlock. So unfamiliar were they with the common variants of
modern rowing equipment (why?) that they didn't even know how to open
his oarlock! So they struggled, wasting valuable time while the guy was
busy drowning. And remember that at the end of a race you're a bit
short of breath, so ill-prepared to not inhale.
Eventually, who now knows how, the guy was extricated and given whatever
emergency treatment was required. He survived to row another day.
Had he been using the proper (50mm) length heel cords this would have
been merely a laughable mishap. Instead, a huge fuss ensued. Instead
of identifying & underlining the real causes of the incident as:
1. over-theatrical acting at the end of the race, causing loss of
boat control
2. improper, inadequate or absent heel-restraint cords
the powers that be conducted an "investigation" which ended up, quite
wrongly, in blaming the manufacturer of the oarlock for the resulting
cock-up.
One ought not to be able to spin such a story with a straight face, yet
an official report was published. I presume they felt the need to save
face, & knew a mechanically naïve & safety blasé public would swallow
it. Had I been the makers of the gate they wrongly blamed for this
fiasco, I would not have been pleased. And, of course, the failure by
FISA to ensure that all rowers followed the existing heel restraint
rules was lost in the Wash, like King John's jewels. Particularly as at
the same regatta competitors were being told to cover up makers' names
on seat pads!
That was a non-fatal, if farcical, example of how inadequate heel
restraints could kill. On RSR not so long back was a report of a nasty
foot-entrapment involving an inverted Israeli woman sculler. And during
the protracted aftermath of the Leo Blockley tragedy I was earnestly
asked by an Oxford don to stop challenging the dishonest official
attempts to blame the victim rather than to address & eliminate the
cause of Leo's death, only to learn later that this same guy had once
lost a crew-mate, trapped by his feet & drowned when their pair-oar
capsized. That further illustrates how the authorities like to hide bad
news and shoot the messenger, as well as the fatal consequences of
equipment being unfit for purpose
Maybe rowers are so unaware of the dangers that they must either see or
experience capsizing with inadequate heel restraints to fully appreciate
the need for the effective, passive foot release provided by properly
adjusted heel cords?
Henry Law
> perhaps 1 kN of force is not enough to tear a shoe off from the stretcher
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.sport.rowing/XyrofRKDoFc/Ost_6nJg-KkJ
) both my pair partner and I got one foot hung up. One thing I didn't
mention in my original description was the fact that in order to free
his one stuck foot my partner actually broke the footplate in half, such
was the force he was exerting to, in effect, save his own life.
James HS
To argue that there are so many other incidents that this issue is low on the priority - only has to be countered by a normal person that any of those other incidents is likely to result in a capsize - wherein the one of two safety features in a boat will come into effect (and likely the other one being buoyancy!)
I can assure you as long as i have anything to do with it my club will not adopt the 'lowest fixing point' rule as I think it is life endangering.
JHS
carl
However, any shoe which can tear away is itself a safety hazard.
Imagine that you need to make an emergency stop, but the break-free load
on your shoe is close to, or less than, that? Then the shoe may come
away and you will not stop the boat (this is a similar argument to that
against training on busy waters with feet out of shoes).
In any safety system there will be a crucial link, and that involves
some kind of mechanism - except that this was never a problem for over a
century, during which rowers were completely content with using fixed
clogs. Clogs were totally safe, whereas everything that has now
replaced them is definitely less than perfectly safe.
I have nothing against the Clicko system, which responds not to direct
tension but to a critical rotation of the shoe in one or more planes, as
does Shimano. But there is nothing wrong with the simple
heel-restraining cord, which responds automatically to the rower's heel
being lifted beyond the limit permitted by the cord. Both are passive
systems which work.
What is entirely wrong is when rowers, and in this case a rowing
official, get bees in their bonnets about safety equipment & start to
make ill-considered attempts to move the safety goalposts. Get it wrong
& you will be dead or brain damaged for a very long time.
I recall the endless, inane arguments against compulsory use of seat
belts. And still there are smart-arses who think it clever to drive
un-belted. Safe equipment is only safe if properly maintained and
regularly tested. Safe use depends on good training and discipline.
Too many of these factors are too often absent from the way we conduct
our sport.
Cheers -
Sarah Harbour
Sarah
PS: I remember Ron Needs telling me about the dislocated knee incident... *shudders*
gsl...@gmail.com
At Craftsbury Sculling Center several years ago (I think I was there in 2007 and 2010 but not sure), someone capsized, and the center channel was not screwed in in the right place. So there was a position where the foot plate could be secured to the side channels but not the center. Fortunately the women who capsized was very tall and flexible and managed to get her head above water with her feet still attached. I still remember the look on the faces of the staff when they heard what happened. They fixed the boat right away.
carl
> Have not direct knowledge but I was told someone at Marin Rowing Club drowned a while ago because they could not get their feet out when their single capsized. Anyone have any more info on that?
>
> At Craftsbury Sculling Center several years ago (I think I was there in 2007 and 2010 but not sure), someone capsized, and the center channel was not screwed in in the right place. So there was a position where the foot plate could be secured to the side channels but not the center. Fortunately the women who capsized was very tall and flexible and managed to get her head above water with her feet still attached. I still remember the look on the faces of the staff when they heard what happened. They fixed the boat right away.
>
under-reported. Even when reported there's a strong tendency to shovel
it under the carpet by blaming the victims, or by claiming it's an
"unpredictable one-off" - the first being downright malign, the second
just inane. And always the rule is to marginalise the bereaved, lest
they "make a fuss".
This dismissive attitude induces ignorance & disdain, even for simple
safety basics like heel-restraint cords. It also encourages leech-like
safety wonks with no practical experience of resolving real emergencies
& who think you can cover every eventuality with check-list tick-boxes.
The near-drowning incident that some of us witnessed in Mannheim
regatta, 1980, showed how nearly-impossible it is for a sculler with
trapped feet to get their head above water for long enough to take a
fresh breath, & I'm unconvinced that body length will change that. What
happened was that every time the sculler got their nose above water the
boat rolled & out their head back under. I doubt the fittest person can
keep that up for long.
Lucy
I'm 5ft 5 with size 5 feet, legs much shorter than my body and a disability.I'm also lucky enough to have my own albeit low-value 1x, and you'd be amazed how many people comment on the size of the shoes in it along the lines of "ooo, the previous owner must have had big feet!" because I've chosen to fit a pair two sizes too big precisely to reduce the danger of my ever getting stuck in them. I also have the heel restraints tied down to 5mm, and have found the only difference it makes to my ability to row is a positive one, in that I no longer over-compress at the catch!
Today I was out in it when the weather turned suddenly from a flat calm to a howling typhoon, catching several of us in small boats out somewhat on our return to dry land 2k downstream. I don't mind admitting it was a scary scull back in, despite the fact I have to use floats (which are more hindrance than help in a wind) - a friend of mine, a fellow para based in Warrington, very nearly drowned after capsizing a wider-beamed boat with exactly the same float system on it last year, so it's by no means foolproof. But of all the many things I had to be scared of at that point in the game getting stuck in the boat by my feet was not one of them.
Perhaps it's the knowledge that using that very same float system means boats are virtually impossible to right again single-handed once capsized sharpening my mind - they help "float" an upturned boat far better than one the right way up, it would seem, the official safety advice being that no Para should go on the water without a launch...I'm not able to do that have that luxury much of the time, plus I'm not some brainwashed automaton who blindly follows all rules, yet even I can't compute why anyone would want to go out without proper heel restraints.
Kit Davies
> I'm still struggling to understand both this proposition and the number of my fellow rowers who seem to think it's a good idea to do their shoes up tight.
My scariest moment came when I collided blades-against-blades with a 4x
travelling in the opposite direction at speed. They stayed upright but I
went in. My feet were too tight though, and were trapped. It was only
because I was still close to the other boat and able to stretch out an
arm to reach their canvases that I was able to keep my head above water.
My shoes stay nice and loose now. I don't see the need to have them
tight in general anyway.
Kit
beng...@gmail.com
However, I flipped once and was hanging head-down under water when my feet did not come out of the shoes easily. Still, I had no problem reaching at my feet, untie the velcros, and remove my feet from the shoes. I would imagine that, if needed, I could also have pushed at the heels of the shoes to get my feet out. All that didn't take more than 20 seconds.
So, I'm wondering what prevented the other folks from doing the same.
Please note: I am not trying to second-guess how they dealt with the situation or that they might have been panicked. I am only trying to understand what might give me trouble the next time I flip.
Thank you, Bengt.
wmar...@gmail.com
James HS
I run capsize drills in our local swimming pool and the degree of panic that most users exhibit is quite high. We ask them to tap on the hull three times while they are submerged and that takes all the mental strength they can muster ..... few do their feet up overly tight after that! - but in the larger boats they feel immune!
Have had more gibberish back from BR so not quite sure what to do - I have no toys to throw out of the pram (none of any significance) but it has made me decide not to train as an umpire (when I would be forced to enforce a rule I think is hazardous) and will stick to things I do have influence over - like my own club exceeding the safety requirements of our NGB!
I did not think you could make it up!
James
thomas....@googlemail.com
That being said, id still class it as one of the most dangerous things that could happen when out on the water - i have strong memories of doing a capsise drill in a pool and doing the "hull tapping" before releasing, even in a warm pool it was alarming and so in the cold thames im sure it would be panic inducing, and im aware that all energy lost faffing with getting out of my shoes will be energy I dont have in getting me and my boat to the bank as quickly as possible before I get too cold
Think its crazy that anything other than the very safest action on feet release is being considered
carl
> Have had more gibberish back from BR so not quite sure what to do - I have no toys to throw out of the pram (none of any significance) but it has made me decide not to train as an umpire (when I would be forced to enforce a rule I think is hazardous) and will stick to things I do have influence over - like my own club exceeding the safety requirements of our NGB!
>
> I did not think you could make it up!
Would you feel able to post said gibberish, either directly cut-&-pasted
onto RSR, or as a link, or privately to me? That would be very greatly
appreciated, thank you.
Sarah Harbour
Sarah
Henry Law
> I see that we (GBR) are proposing the FISA change to the old GBR heel restraint rule
" It would be normal and natural for some rowers through ankle
flexibility or length of foot to move through and beyond the range
permitted by ‘7cm’. "
WTF? Seven centimeters of heel lift is too little? Who--who, I ask
you--needs that amount of heel lift? Is there one person in this group
who does, or who knows someone who does?
BR should be challenged to provide details of the requirement for this,
because it sounds like .... well, I won't say what it sounds like but
the options that go through my mind are not complimentary.
I saw a nice thing on Forceboink the other day: "I'm not going to accept
the things I can't change any more: I'm going to change the things I
can't accept." Quite so.
Sarah Harbour
Richard
> Have had more gibberish back from BR so not quite sure what to do - I have no toys to throw out of the pram (none of any significance) but it has made me decide not to train as an umpire (when I would be forced to enforce a rule I think is hazardous) and will stick to things I do have influence over - like my own club exceeding the safety requirements of our NGB!
>
> I did not think you could make it up!
In any case as Henry as commented later in this thread... [quote] I saw a nice thing on Forceboink the other day: "I'm not going to accept the things I can't change any more: I'm going to change the things I can't accept." Quite so. [/quote]
If you are considering training as an umpire, don't let BR politics put you off. If you have the time and inclination (and can put up with a certain amount of BS at times) then DO IT! We need more switched-on people who care about these things (as you obviously do). The only way to change things is by being part of it. Posting to RSR is great, but getting out there amongst crews at events is a far more practical way of making a difference. As far as I am aware the ONLY online source of practical images of heel restraints and bow-balls (good, bad and indifferent) remains the resource I put together in 1999/2000 when I was training. Despite being told off for doing it (even though it was done with the permission of the people whose boats I photographed and clearly identified as my own views and NOT official ARA/BR guidance) I have had a trickle of clubs (not just in the UK) asking to use the material, which all are very welcome to do if they find it helpful. It's not been updated for yonks mind you. Like all the best websites it's in a permanent state of semi-neglect!
carl
lower still with the help of speed-bumps let into the bottom of the
boat) is to help you to get right over your feet so that you can then
drive vertically upwards at the catch, like a weight-lifter.......
Just a mo - isn't the rowing stroke conducted almost entirely in the
horizontal, rather than the vertical, plane?
Cheers -
James HS
> It's a shame some people appear to have such a low opinion of umpires (and other event and club officials). In my experience the vast majority are level-headed, hard-working individuals who do their often thankless task for the love of the sport.
However, I have to look at where I am best placed to help the sport that I love to either run, or to be safe, and have concluded that it is at grass roots club level (where I contribute to the safety (was CWSA for 5 years) or as a coach of a squad (2 years) or of disabled rowers (4 years) or running our capcise/safety drills (6 years) or coaching learn to row (1 year) or being a TRRC safety panel member (6 years).
All of these allow me to impart a strong safety culture - fully supported by my club and/or documents like the rowing code that (while it does have some inconsistencies) is heavily safety driven and based on something like the COLREGS which have a huge degree of common sense/safety driven by learning from accidents.
OR - I can devote some of that time to 'rowsafe' and BR umpiring rules which I have now discovered are based on some non-fact based and IMO flawed and 'influencable' 'views'. ..... how could I do race control and pass a heel restraint that is in my opinion too long to be safe, but fits with the safety instructions of my NGB?
And how could I move to alter things from within - as a wet behind the ears umpire? - I am no politician, just don't have the skills for wheeling/dealing as I have narrow tunnel vision on safety and just can't see grey areas for 'negotiation'.
So I think that the majority of Umpires do a great job. I am in awe of how much volunteer time the whole rowing community puts back into the sport - I know what resource it takes to ge one bum on a seat before they have even taken a stroke.
But as I grow older I think I heave learned (somewhat) where to fight my battles and allocate my personal resources .... and as soon as I sense 'politics' I humbly withdraw to areas where my efforts might have more effect :)
Chris A
James HS
> James, it's not the BR rule that might be changing.
I understand that, but this has come from the safety committee in the NGB. Over the summer I had the pleasure of working at the Rio olympics as a pilot/driver pre and during the competition. My first FISA event and I was shocked at the lack of some basic safety on this most prestigious international event - no one I was driving in my safety boat would have known how to right a crew hanging upside down - indeed I don't as I never was given the chance to practice any form of rescue. No life jackets or kill cords used or allowed!
So when my NGB lobbies to reduce what I regard as a safety feature I am shocked - and ask the department directly to reveal a lack of properly argued reasoning I am more shocked. The same argument can be applied to the UK and when hey show me that their training material supports the lack of a need for a restraint because when you capsize you are now supposed to slip your hands down the back of your ankles to release your heels my jaw falls so far open that I worry for my dentures.
So I would not be surprised if the change is introduced to a) the culture and then b) the regulations.
I asked around the umpires that I know and was told it was to make Control Commission easier for Umpires - so I have had several reasons for the change - none of which talk about safety/measurement/risk
And that just saddens me in a sport where this is our seat belt, just as a life jacket is a coach's.
It would not bother me if I did not think it was a life saving feature.
James
carl
> James, it's not the BR rule that might be changing.
>
Do you really suppose that certain individuals in BR, if they get FISA
to swallow this one, will have no interest in getting rid of effective
passive foot release in the UK?
Henry Law
> No life jackets or kill cords used or allowed!
life jackets or kill cords not provided/encouraged, but they were
actually prohibited?
Little about the IOC would surprise me, but this is still hard to
believe. Why did they do that?
Richard
The IOC are effectively the clients for the Olympic Games. The games are organised by a local Organising Committee (LOCOG for London 2012 and I guess some ghastly acronym like ROCOG (?) for Rio). So *if* lifejackets and kill-cords were actively banned (James please do elaborate 'cos this sounds utterly crazy) then it would have been ROCOG or perhaps FISA and / or the Brazilian Rowing Federation, but more likely whoever organised the launches and their crews.
FISA certainly DOES NOT ban lifejackets or kill-cords. I can't imagine that the Brazilian federation would ban them either. British Rowing actively requires them to be worn. At every FISA event at Dorney (2005, 2006, 2011, 2012 and 2013) all afloat in launches, including uniquely (I believe) for FISA events, the umpires, wore lifejackets. This is a combination of BR and Dorney Lake's local rules, so well done them and the respective event Organising Committees. The only external "interference" I can recall at Dorney's international events was in 2012 when thanks to the draconian branding control imposed by the IOC (on behalf of its army of multinational corporate sponsors) we weren't allowed to use our own lifejackets but instead LOCOG provided those who needed them with specially commissioned unbranded ones (shhh... don't tell anyone but they were all CREWSAVER). We'd have struggled to get our own lifejackets through the airport-style security at the lake anyway.
robin_d...@hotmail.com
What is the point when the governing body really don't give a monkeys?
Henry Law
> Careful where you aim the anti-Establishment blunderbuss.
aimed, which I choose to use against the IOC for some of the reasons you
mention, and also because of its self-serving attitude to everything,
its craven approach to its sponsors (no, I don't care about how much
money they contribute), its bullying attitude to everyone from small
suppliers to major governments, its recently-demonstrated compliant
attitude to doping ... my keyboard is running out of ink.
> I guess some ghastly acronym like ROCOG (?) for Rio). So *if*
> lifejackets and kill-cords were actively banned (James please do
> elaborate 'cos this sounds utterly crazy)
and lifejackets (I do give credit where credit is due) and it's not
surprising to me that FISA are too. But James's original note
suggested, to me quite clearly, that measures were in force in Rio
specifically to prohibit the use of these two simple safety measures.
"Say it ain't so, Joe" (or James, in this case).
The rest of your post was interesting and enlightening, as usual.
James HS
Life jackets we asked for were in a cupboard and they refused to issue to us despite numerous requests as high as we could go.
FISA never wore the ones they had in the cats.
I asked where defibs were and never found out!
We pointed out the ribs would not land by the ambulance so hatched a different plan.
Practiced NO rescues
Could not communicate how to rescue with non english speaking lifeguards.
So a few things to worry about!
James
Kit Davies
Wait ... hmmmm
Kit
Chris A
Chris A
Where shoes or other devices holding the feet will remain in the boat, each shoe or device shall be independently restrained such that when the heel reaches the horizontal position the foot will be released from the shoe...
carl
> The GBR proposal has been withdrawn in favour of the FISA proposal
>
> Where shoes or other devices holding the feet will remain in the boat, each shoe or device shall be independently restrained such that when the heel reaches the horizontal position the foot will be released from the shoe...
>
the shoe is a close (which does not mean tight) fit for length.
Those who concoct safety rules should dump the guesswork & have the
integrity to subject what they propose to rigorous testing.
The only adequate tests are those in which the proposer his or herself
is the crash-test dummy. If it works every time without exception, then
it should work for everyone. If it fails even once in 10 controlled
attempts with rescuers immediately to hand, then it will likely fail to
release 10% of inverted rowers and it is irresponsible to advocate such
an arrangement.
I fear that rowing, feeling itself to be a very safe sport, has a rather
weak grasp on the meaning of the word safety when it guesses rather than
tests before regulating.
sander
James HS
New BR capsize video advises puttiiing both hands behind your heals to release .... while you are under cold water! Could not make it up.
A small amount of actual testing blows it out of the water ... so what does it make me think of the rest of my ngb safety guidance?
Sad
James
carl
> That actually is a good practice with aircraft flight testing. To have the lead engineer on board during the test.
>
do the classic thing (per aviation mythology): sit in the drawing
office, watch the plane crash on take-off & kill all aboard, then say to
each other, "OK chaps, back to the drawing board".
Except that they never do go back to the drawing board.
Having made it hard to report failures &, if failures are even reported
(well, what's the point of report if it's going to be ignored?), they
blame the victims.
In my own bitter experience, to blow the whistle on official safety
failures which actually kill rowers leads to self-regarding officials at
all levels into an unprincipled 10-year official resistance to their
making a rational change that would save lives. And even when they do,
at long last, act in the right direction, they do it as badly &
ignorantly as they possibly can.
Why?
Henry Law
> New BR capsize video advises
for "Capsize Video" ...
Do you have a link to it?