Boat Weight - FISA vs Club Rowing
Tink
lengths, but the use of underweight boats in club competition been
discussed?
I understand there is a FISA minimum weight for which you cannot race
at FISA events unless you boat is at least this minimum weight.
But reading the British Rowing Rules of Racing (http://
www.britishrowing.org/upload/files/Association/Policies/RulesofRacing-2010.pdf)
the only restriction on the boat is in section 2-3-8, which makes no
mention of boat weight, or compliant to FISA.
In which case it seems that I can use an under FISA weight boat for
racing in BR competition (I wonder if the case for other countries).
In which case why do boat manufacturers not offer and promote
underweight boats for sale to the general public?
(I understand that lower weight is not always quicker, but given the
popular perception that it is it would make commercial sense to market
it - in a similar way that I can't see why a bow mounted wing rigger
is better than a stern one, but as it is the thing to have it makes
commercial sense to offer one if you can (provisio - provided costs of
developing are outweighed by projected sales)).
Walter Martindale
> The topic of minimum boat weights have been discussed at great
> lengths, but the use of underweight boats in club competition been
> discussed?
>
> I understand there is a FISA minimum weight for which you cannot race
> at FISA events unless you boat is at least this minimum weight.
>
> the only restriction on the boat is in section 2-3-8, which makes no
> mention of boat weight, or compliant to FISA.
>
> In which case it seems that I can use an under FISA weight boat for
> racing in BR competition (I wonder if the case for other countries).
>
> In which case why do boat manufacturers not offer and promote
> underweight boats for sale to the general public?
>
> (I understand that lower weight is not always quicker, but given the
> popular perception that it is it would make commercial sense to market
> it - in a similar way that I can't see why a bow mounted wing rigger
> is better than a stern one, but as it is the thing to have it makes
> commercial sense to offer one if you can (provisio - provided costs of
> developing are outweighed by projected sales)).
I suspect that manufacturers build one boat essentially so that in the
odd situation where one of their boats is actually required for
international racing, they don't have to do anything to their design
to make it "legal".
With modern gear I understand that boats can be made very much lighter
than the rules permit - How much do you trim before the boat is so
light that it doesn't have the toughness to survive several seasons of
training and racing? How much material is actually needed to make a
strong, tough, stiff boat? I understand that before weight minima
were in the rules some national federations would buy a boat that they
anticipated would last only for a few weeks of "finishing" and racing
- lot of money for something not to last, unless it's part of a gold
medal bid...
W
Carl Douglas
In which case it was not going to bring any benefit. The fundamental
fact about structures such as rowing shells is that boats made for
adequate stiffness will also be strong enough to give a good life-span -
unless there are serious flaws in design or construction.
Poor design that is likely to shorten lifespan revolves about the
unintended creation of, or failure to recognise, locations of high
stress, where stress directions change abruptly, where fibre alignments
are inappropriate or there is insufficient material. Yet the extra
material that might be needed to cure that problem is normally
minuscule, & better design would incur no weight penalty at all. And
those overstressed areas will from the outset be correspondingly more
flexible than they should have been. So what's the point?
As has been said before, the FISA weight limits are a typically
unthought-through response to a non-problem. The only problem was the
ill-informed opinion, in this technically naive sport of ours, of many
rowers & coaches that reducing weight, by small or larger amounts, must
make boats faster. The fact is that it doesn't work that way. The
lighter the boat, the more is oscillates in speed through each stroke &
the higher it's fluid drag losses become. The result is that there is
an optimum boat weight for a given crew with a given technique. The
evidence is that around the current boat weights there is no speed
benefit from going lighter & maybe even a speed detriment.
Where there could perhaps be a speed gain is if rowers at club level
carried a few pounds less lard. Sure, that would reduce the
displacement of the boat by far more than any design changes could
achieve, & by losing weight they'd adjust the ratio of boat to crew
weight such that boat speed oscillations & their contribution to the
overall hull drag were significantly reduced.
BTW, do _not_ start leaning on cox to lose weight. A good cox is well
worth a little extra weight, since that too reduces the boat's speed
oscillations. And a rake thin cox, especially one who has been bullied
into weight loss, will be neither happy nor confident & thus will be
less effective.
So forget the boat weight mythology. Get mentally tougher & concentrate
on rowing better, pulling harder & enjoying the sport.
Cheers -
Carl
PS If boat weight does matter that much, how can FISA pretend that
applying the same boat weight rule to heavies & lighties, men & women,
whatever their individual weights, facilitates a fairer contest?
C
--
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)
Sarah A Harbour
> carried a few pounds less lard. Sure, that would reduce the
So true!! Especially if said excess lard actually prevents them from
getting into the right position to row.
Walter Martindale
> On 22/11/2010 18:52, Walter Martindale wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 22, 5:15 am, Tink<helen.sander...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> The topic of minimum boat weights have been discussed at great
> >> lengths, but the use of underweight boats in club competition been
> >> discussed?
>
> >> I understand there is a FISA minimum weight for which you cannot race
> >> at FISA events unless you boat is at least this minimum weight.
>
I recall an international Kiwi athlete being told by a rowing legend/
curmudgeon that the boat might be faster if someone in the crew lost
his spare tire... sorry, it was New Zealand - tyre... This was a
couple of seasons before he represented NZ in senior competition.
He took it to heart, got a training program from... someone... and
proceeded to harden up and trim down.
re-boat weight, heavies vs lighties:
Since heavies usually race heavies and lighties usually race lighties,
what's it matter?
W
Carl Douglas
>> those overstressed areas will from the outset be correspondingly more
>> flexible than they should have been. So what's the point?
>>
>> As has been said before, the FISA weight limits are a typically
>> unthought-through response to a non-problem. The only problem was the
>> ill-informed opinion, in this technically naive sport of ours, of many
>> make boats faster. The fact is that it doesn't work that way. The
>> lighter the boat, the more is oscillates in speed through each stroke&
>> the higher it's fluid drag losses become. The result is that there is
>> an optimum boat weight for a given crew with a given technique. The
>> evidence is that around the current boat weights there is no speed
>>
>> Where there could perhaps be a speed gain is if rowers at club level
>> carried a few pounds less lard. Sure, that would reduce the
>> displacement of the boat by far more than any design changes could
>> weight such that boat speed oscillations& their contribution to the
>> overall hull drag were significantly reduced.
>>
>> BTW, do _not_ start leaning on cox to lose weight. A good cox is well
>> worth a little extra weight, since that too reduces the boat's speed
>> oscillations. And a rake thin cox, especially one who has been bullied
>> less effective.
>>
>> So forget the boat weight mythology. Get mentally tougher& concentrate
>> on rowing better, pulling harder& enjoying the sport.
>>
>> Cheers -
>> Carl
>>
>> PS If boat weight does matter that much, how can FISA pretend that
>> whatever their individual weights, facilitates a fairer contest?
>> C
>>
> Re Lard:
> I recall an international Kiwi athlete being told by a rowing legend/
> curmudgeon that the boat might be faster if someone in the crew lost
> his spare tire... sorry, it was New Zealand - tyre... This was a
> couple of seasons before he represented NZ in senior competition.
> He took it to heart, got a training program from... someone... and
> proceeded to harden up and trim down.
> re-boat weight, heavies vs lighties:
> Since heavies usually race heavies and lighties usually race lighties,
> what's it matter?
> W
If it matters at all, then it certainly matters in a competition between
2 people if one races at 85kg & the other at 105kg. You do get such
weight spreads, & wider, & with the advantage already going to the boat
sized for the larger engine, as it does in any displacement vessel, if
boat weight were to be important then equal boat weights magnify the
disadvantage.
Now rowing on FISA multilane courses with wind shadow are frequently
completely unfair (as in Karapiro 2010, but equally likely in Dorney
2012, but we aren't supposed to say so), yet FISA burbles on about how
their rules create a level playing field & even tries to get us to tick
their questionnaire box to that effect. But not all HWt male rowers row
at ~100kg, & some very good LWts have successfully moved up to HWt with
no prospect of developing the musculature, stature & mass of a 100kg giant.
So either boat weights are irrelevant, in which case cut the crap & drop
the weight rules, or they do matter, in which case let boat weight be in
some way proportional to crew weight. Generally, fewer rules makes
better sense. Sadly, committees love to generate rules.
Cheers -
Carl
zeke_hoskin
> lengths, but the use of underweight boats in club competition been
> discussed?
>
> I understand there is a FISA minimum weight for which you cannot race
> at FISA events unless you boat is at least this minimum weight.
>
> the only restriction on the boat is in section 2-3-8, which makes no
> mention of boat weight, or compliant to FISA.
>
> In which case it seems that I can use an under FISA weight boat for
> racing in BR competition (I wonder if the case for other countries).
>
> In which case why do boat manufacturers not offer and promote
> underweight boats for sale to the general public?
>
> (I understand that lower weight is not always quicker, but given the
> popular perception that it is it would make commercial sense to market
> it - in a similar way that I can't see why a bow mounted wing rigger
> is better than a stern one, but as it is the thing to have it makes
> commercial sense to offer one if you can (provisio - provided costs of
> developing are outweighed by projected sales)).
Lighter boats are better. Maybe no faster in the water, but easier to
handle on land and likely to do less damage when us clumsy oafs whack
something/someone with a carried boat.
Carl Douglas
And 500 grams on a 1x matters in that context?
Let's look at it another way. You are most fatigued at the end of an
outing, yet few shells end their outing, especially on a windy day,
without a bit of water inside.
Many shells act as floating water buckets - they either have no
provision for self-bailing or what provision for self-bailing that they
do have works badly. So you row much of the outing, or the race, with a
significant weight of captive water, far exceeding any feasible
difference in dry boat weights. And that water is not just a heavy,
non-contributing passenger but, as it sloshes around with every stroke,
actively soaks up energy.
So, while good shell design does not make the boat any heavier than it
needs to be for the stiffness & longevity the client needs & deserves.
It also ensures that the boat does not needless gain and trap a weight
of water during each outing. Which is a rather more important aspect
than needless fretting over dry boat weight. And is much easier to lift
out of the water after the outing.
In short, we need to take on board how a boat really functions.
Remember what happened in Athens 2003? The world juniors, not the Olys.
So rough was it that many shells swamped.
There followed the wholly irrational knee-jerk reaction at that time,
especially within the US squad (I've seen the email correspondence),
that this water all came off the riggers & that therefore they must have
wing-rigged boats. But in fact the water simply poured in over the
sides - as the tops of waves ran along & overflowed the sides (we
discussed all this at that time). what came off riggers, even teh worst
riggers, was a mere smidgen of what flowed straight over the sides. And
we also discussed how the influx rises exponentially as the amount by
which waves overtop the sides increases even marginally.
So what happened? They went for wing rigged boats, most of which had
saxboards lowered by up to 40mm - to allow the wing to pass over the
saxboard. The only bit of the boat that remained at the level of the
pre-cut-down saxboards was the part of the wing which passed over the
boat. So a bar was put there on which to clout your hands & catch your
shins where previously there had been nothing!
And had it been even 2/3 as rough in 2004 as it was in 2003, the eights
final would have been a spectacular swamp-fest. So that lesson was missed.
Funny, irrational old world, this rowing game ;)
Tink
> On Nov 22, 5:15 am, Tink <helen.sander...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > The topic of minimum boat weights have been discussed at great
> > lengths, but the use of underweight boats in club competition been
> > discussed?
>
> > I understand there is a FISA minimum weight for which you cannot race
> > at FISA events unless you boat is at least this minimum weight.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I had the same thought as you.
I could see some boats being made very light and fragile, and some
people being ripped off, buying an unsuitable boat that is not very
well made, very expensive and very light damaging it at the slightest
knock.
But then the free commercial would say that people (as now) learn
which boats are best suited to there purpose (very fast, very durable,
good for novices...) and you would make your own choice weighing up
boat weight, durability... picking what was best for you.
Tink
> On 22/11/2010 18:52, Walter Martindale wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 22, 5:15 am, Tink<helen.sander...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> The topic of minimum boat weights have been discussed at great
> >> lengths, but the use of underweight boats in club competition been
> >> discussed?
>
> >> I understand there is a FISA minimum weight for which you cannot race
> >> at FISA events unless you boat is at least this minimum weight.
>
> URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk(boats) &www.aerowing.co.uk(riggers)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
My musings were not on the validity of the FISA weight, that has been
discussed at length. But that I don't see any rules/restrictions on
making under FISA weight boats and marketing them for use in club
level competition? So why don't manufacturers do it?
I'm not sure I buy the argument from Walter that by making all boats
FISA weight the manufacturers don't run the risk of one of their under
FISA weight boats being used in FISA competition. Those who race in
FISA competitions would surely be careful of this.
My only thought is that by having everyone having FISA weight boats,
it allows comparison of your performance with others (both fellow club
mates and international rowers) with less difference made by the boat
(different shapes etc... make a difference, but all at FISA weight
takes FISA takes weight out of the equation to some degree).
Carl Douglas
>> those overstressed areas will from the outset be correspondingly more
>> flexible than they should have been. So what's the point?
>>
>> As has been said before, the FISA weight limits are a typically
>> unthought-through response to a non-problem. The only problem was the
>> ill-informed opinion, in this technically naive sport of ours, of many
>> make boats faster. The fact is that it doesn't work that way. The
>> lighter the boat, the more is oscillates in speed through each stroke&
>> the higher it's fluid drag losses become. The result is that there is
>> an optimum boat weight for a given crew with a given technique. The
>> evidence is that around the current boat weights there is no speed
>>
>> Where there could perhaps be a speed gain is if rowers at club level
>> carried a few pounds less lard. Sure, that would reduce the
>> displacement of the boat by far more than any design changes could
>> weight such that boat speed oscillations& their contribution to the
>> overall hull drag were significantly reduced.
>>
>> BTW, do _not_ start leaning on cox to lose weight. A good cox is well
>> worth a little extra weight, since that too reduces the boat's speed
>> oscillations. And a rake thin cox, especially one who has been bullied
>> less effective.
>>
>> So forget the boat weight mythology. Get mentally tougher& concentrate
>> on rowing better, pulling harder& enjoying the sport.
>>
>> Cheers -
>> Carl
>>
>> PS If boat weight does matter that much, how can FISA pretend that
>> whatever their individual weights, facilitates a fairer contest?
>> C
>>
>> --
>> 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: c...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> My musings were not on the validity of the FISA weight, that has been
> discussed at length. But that I don't see any rules/restrictions on
> making under FISA weight boats and marketing them for use in club
> level competition? So why don't manufacturers do it?
>
> I'm not sure I buy the argument from Walter that by making all boats
> FISA weight the manufacturers don't run the risk of one of their under
> FISA weight boats being used in FISA competition. Those who race in
> FISA competitions would surely be careful of this.
>
>
> My only thought is that by having everyone having FISA weight boats,
> it allows comparison of your performance with others (both fellow club
> mates and international rowers) with less difference made by the boat
> (different shapes etc... make a difference, but all at FISA weight
> takes FISA takes weight out of the equation to some degree).
You ought not to demand lighter boats unless you understand the context.
That's why I took pains to explain that context & its inherent
irrationality.
On RSR, being a thoughtful newsgroup, one addresses not only one
poster's particular concerns but the wider issues arising therefrom. If
whether dry boat weight is a performance-affecting parameter doesn't
concern you, then fine. Sadly, rowing abounds in with potential to harm
consumers' pockets. So before people go buying extra lightness in
boats, it might help to know the real rather than imagined facts.
I see you repeating the suggestion that equal boat weights "takes weight
out of the equation". No, it doesn't, & I thought I'd explained that
one too. In particular, if weight did matter, how on earth is it fairer
for competitors of markedly different weights to have to race each other
in boats of equal weight? That is pure Orwellian doublethink. Would
running races be fairer if all shoes weigh the same?
I deplore the assumptions made about the equipment we use. If there is
evidence, let's have it.
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
Walter Martindale
> I'm not sure I buy the argument from Walter that by making all boats
> FISA weight the manufacturers don't run the risk of one of their under
> FISA weight boats being used in FISA competition. Those who race in
> FISA competitions would surely be careful of this.
>
You'd think that international crews would pay attention but I do
recall one of the announcements from the 2010 worlds that someone was
nailed for an underweight boat.
http://80.83.47.230/pdfswisstiming/000000433_OC_06_045.PDF
There, found it -
W
Carl Douglas
Thanks Walter.
So you take a disabled crew & let them travel to the other side of the
world. You let them race in some of the least fair conditions we've
seen for quite a while. And then you kick them in the nuts for having a
boat underweight. That's the way to show just who's boss to 2 guys who
already have quite enough problems. Gee thanks!
Interestingly, the scale of the supposed crime is not given - e.g. are
we talking about grams or kilograms?
Unless it was a large amount, had that crew had the sense (= dishonesty)
to stuff a wet sock under the deck, or just splash a load of water
around as many crews have done to get light boats through a post-race
weigh-in, they'd have been OK. And I can't help wondering how very much
over the minimum their boat weighed while being raced under those often
tempestuous conditions.
I have to say that it makes no sense whatsoever. I am sure no illicit
performance advantage was gained from the application of a rule the
existence of which is unsupported by even a shred of evidence.
:(
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Walter Martindale
Bloody hell. I have no idea of the details, only that they were
relegated because their boat was underweight.
Way back, one of the courses I sat through defined a "sport" as an
activity that had a winner and a loser, a distinct place and time to
compete, some kind of scoring system or other means to determine a
winner through measurement, a few other defining factors and - rules.
I'm sure that the crew in question gained no particular advantage
through their boat being too light, but - which rule are you going to
cherry pick to obey or flaunt? The one where women race against
women? The one where there aren't motors allowed on the boats? The
ones about steroid use?
These guys enter a race where (presumably) their coaching and support
staff know that their boat has to satisfy certain standards, and the
rowers end up getting dumped for the team officials not checking off
the box that says "make sure boat passes weight restrictions". This
might mean glueing a bunch of lead washers to the keel or something,
but are you blaming the team officials for not checking their boxes,
or the FISA officials for doing their jobs?
I know that if I were entering a crew in an international race,
whether I agreed with all of the rules or not, I'd want the athletes
to be able to compete with no risk of being DQ for something stupid
that I did or didn't do.
W
Carl Douglas
OK, so we disagree, which is no problem.
You are happy to keep rowing saddled with a fatuous rule which none has
the wit to rescind - it's one of those bogus articles of dogmatic faith.
Fine. So there's a whole set of extra jobs-for-the-boys-in-blazers a)
to weigh boats just because, with no supporting evidence, some FISA
officers ~30 years ago thought (but didn't know or test) that if they
didn't impose an arbitrary weight limit there'd be an "arms race", & b)
to scrutinise results & impose summary punishments for trivial errors in
boat weight...... Sorry, but I don't believe in fairies.
It is so easy to nobble someone else's boat weight, Walter. Before the
crew check-weighs their boat, shuffle past & stick a makeweight into an
easy but inconspicuous corner. Then amble past after they've weighed
it, & with any lock done a bit of boat lightening, & remove said
makeweight. Job done. And it's so easy, if you've been shifty with
your own boat's weight, to bring it invisibly back up to weight when the
race is over & before you reach land. Then there's the problem of some
rather porous honeycomb boats standing in the sun for a day & losing
weight through transpiration & evaporation of absorbed water - after
check weighing. no one has cheated, but they still get labelled as cheats.
And please don't tell me that nobbling doesn't happen. Years ago, when
the stakes were much lower as rowing was a wholly amateur sport (in the
west), I worked with a guy who should have gone to the Olys in a 2-, but
at final trials someone loosened a previously tightened & checked pin.
No re-row, of course, despite protest & plain evidence of a loose pin.
On a somewhat more recent occasion a GB crew accidentally knocked an
opponent's boat off the rack, & coach said best say nowt & put it back
on the rack, "It'll give 'em a bit more pitch". There are plenty of
other instances of similar or worse. It gets passed off as
gamesmanship. Sport is not quite as honourable as we'd both wish.
So, while I agree entirely with you that in any competition you enter
you must obey the rules, that doesn't mean we should approve daft,
pointless rules, & not express our reasoned opposition to them. Where
is it said that we must not question the rule-makers, nor rationally
reject their work?
Or are we all as gullible as sheep?
Cheers -
Walter Martindale
I didn't say I necessarily agree with all of the rules as they is
writ, and I know some pond-scum-who-pass-for-rowing-people cheat, but
bitching about the rules without actually going to the powers that be
with evidence that the rule is redundant or past its use-by date and/
or proposing replacements to bad rules isn't accomplishing much.
Unless of course you've done that - taken an evidence-based proposal
for discarding the boat weight minima to your national federation OR
to the FISA Materials Commission (does it still exist?)... If you have
done that, what happened? If you haven't done it - you probably among
this group of RSRers have the best knowledge and resources to make a
strong case...
FISA Congress meets every so often to review rules - I didn't pay it
much attention last time because I wasn't coaching national crews, but
the boat minima survived the last round of which I'm aware. Must have
- they're still in the rules that are posted on worldrowing.com.
I had the good fortune to coach a young woman who (after I was fairly
certain I checked over her boat) blasted down the race course in an
inter-provincial "games" competition in her single, got off the water,
and complained that she couldn't row any more and that she was
catching crabs every stroke... (she only won her heat by 2 lengths) -
when I looked at her boat, the pin on her port rigger was loose by at
least 3 mm, and she didn't know why her blade was crabbing every
stroke... Reassured that the race problems weren't her fault, and in
the final with the pins re-rechecked, she won by a greater margin.
Was it me failing to tighten her pin? Was it someone else loosening
her pin? I have no idea, but since then I do, in 'serious'
competition, check every boat over before it goes on the water for
races. and then it's not let out of sight before it is taken to race.
There isn't the time for that at little club regattas, but I do like
the phrase used by boxing referees before each match - "Protect
yourself at all times."
W
Tink
> That's why I took pains to explain that context & its inherent
> irrationality.
>
> On RSR, being a thoughtful newsgroup, one addresses not only one
> poster's particular concerns but the wider issues arising therefrom. If
> whether dry boat weight is a performance-affecting parameter doesn't
> concern you, then fine. Sadly, rowing abounds in with potential to harm
> consumers' pockets. So before people go buying extra lightness in
> boats, it might help to know the real rather than imagined facts.
>
> I see you repeating the suggestion that equal boat weights "takes weight
> out of the equation". No, it doesn't, & I thought I'd explained that
> one too. In particular, if weight did matter, how on earth is it fairer
> for competitors of markedly different weights to have to race each other
> in boats of equal weight? That is pure Orwellian doublethink. Would
> running races be fairer if all shoes weigh the same?
>
> I deplore the assumptions made about the equipment we use. If there is
> evidence, let's have it.
>
> 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
>
> - Show quoted text -
I partly understand the physics displayed why theoretically lower boat
weight it not quicker, such as displayed at:
http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/rowing/physics/weight.html#section9
The differences between the speeds of boats are bound to be tied up
with both hull shape and boat weight - there will be a curve with an
optimum boat weight for a given sculler, so weight must make a
difference even if not in the way some expect.
The popular _perception_ is that lighter is quicker, even if wrong.
I would have thought that seen as we haven't come up with a reason for
not being able to race boats at under FISA weight at club
competitions, that a boat manufacturer would have done it if they
could. Given the perception is that lighter is quicker it sounds to
me like a unique selling point for a manufacturer, such as the crazy
covering of the fluid design boats. Which might sell a couple of
boats.
I guess that maybe why we haven't seen it could be one (or more) of
many reasons such as:
- unable to make a boat lighter that the FISA minimum (Carl might be
able to but other less skilled builders not)
- too costly to do (to change methods, or the cost analysis shows not
cost effective as not enough demand)
- the weight they could reduce the boat to is only an order of grams
rather than kg and as such not worth doing as not a USP
- unwilling to make a light boat that would be fragile and ruin their
reputation due too damaging easily
> In particular, if weight did matter, how on earth is it fairer
> for competitors of markedly different weights to have to race each other
> in boats of equal weight? That is pure Orwellian doublethink. Would
> running races be fairer if all shoes weigh the same?
This is life. Rowing has two weight classifications (usually only one
at club level events) rather than say boxing which has many. How many
classifications do you go to?
I would see that letting everyone have any boat they like as being a
cost saving exercise. If we had many weight classifications, with
different weight boats allowed for each competitor you would need to
have voluntees (I prefer volunteers rather than officials) at races
(I'm thinking club level events here) weighing each boat, and each
competitor, than keeping track that they were racing in the right
boat. Competitors would need to buy a new boat each time they changed
weight, extremely costly for juniors.
We could have it that light weights could race lighter boats only, but
would still require some overhead at club events.
Walter Martindale
Yep - I drafted a comment but didn't send it, discussing the
practicalities of having individual boat weights for (say) seven male
and seven female crew weight classes (as they have in judo) with weigh-
ins for athletes, no averaging, and so on. Regattas would need to be
structured differently, and would take a long time to complete. It's
not like this is F1 racing (which carries its own set of rules) with
the sponsorships that they have - imagine proportional costs? The
steering wheel in an F1 car costs something in the $30,000 range, and
how many tires (or tyres, if you're from other commonwealth countries)
do you go through in a race?
As Tink points out, certain practicalities exist. Race courses are
what they are, each with its own fair/unfair sections created by wind
conditions that differ frequently even during any individual race.
Most rowing teams can only drag so much equipment around from regatta
to regatta for their crews. The blazerati do what they can to make
racing as fair as they can. As a coach, when I'm selecting crews, I
do what I can to make sure every athlete has a fair chance to make the
crew being selected. It's also a good point that most of the
officials at most of the competitions around the world are, indeed,
volunteers, or if they do receive compensation it is only slightly
above their expenses. SOME officials forget that they're there to be
officials and to ensure the fairest event that they can provide -
these switch from being officials to being officious. I've seen this
happen, too.
Sigh,
W
Carl Douglas
>> You ought not to demand lighter boats unless you understand the context.
>> irrationality.
>>
>> On RSR, being a thoughtful newsgroup, one addresses not only one
>> poster's particular concerns but the wider issues arising therefrom. If
>> whether dry boat weight is a performance-affecting parameter doesn't
>> concern you, then fine. Sadly, rowing abounds in with potential to harm
>> consumers' pockets. So before people go buying extra lightness in
>> boats, it might help to know the real rather than imagined facts.
>>
>> I see you repeating the suggestion that equal boat weights "takes weight
>> one too. In particular, if weight did matter, how on earth is it fairer
>> for competitors of markedly different weights to have to race each other
>> in boats of equal weight? That is pure Orwellian doublethink. Would
>> running races be fairer if all shoes weigh the same?
>>
>> I deplore the assumptions made about the equipment we use. If there is
>> evidence, let's have it.
>>
>> Cheers -
>> carl
>>
>> --
>> Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
>> Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
>> Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
>> Find: http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
>> Email: c...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I partly understand the physics displayed why theoretically lower boat
> weight it not quicker, such as displayed at:
> http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/rowing/physics/weight.html#section9
In fact the original analysis on this was done by me. I have just dug
out my own Mathcad files, the most recent of which (BOATOPW5.MCD) dates
from 7 March 1999, revised 29 April 2000. I copied info from this work
to Anu Dudhia, at his request, so I'm sorry to see that the credit to my
work, originally on his website, is now (apparently) absent.
Always there is a boat mass giving minimum drag, dependent on crew mass,
technique & in exactly which part of the speed/drag regime the boat is
operating (we glibly talk in terms of drag being proportional the square
of velocity, but as you nudge up towards peak speeds that exponent will
rise)
FWIW, by varying the exponent, n, of velocity in the drag/velocity
relationship D = k.V^n, you can get a minimum drag boat mass for a 1x as
high as ~22kg, or for a less extreme exponent (further from the limiting
speed level imposed by rising wave drag) it could be 15kg or, as the
exponent falls further it might be 10kg, or less.
The point that needs to be understood is that there is always an optimum
boat weight, below which crew performance starts to decline.
>
> The differences between the speeds of boats are bound to be tied up
> with both hull shape and boat weight - there will be a curve with an
> optimum boat weight for a given sculler, so weight must make a
> difference even if not in the way some expect.
Exactly so.
>
> The popular _perception_ is that lighter is quicker, even if wrong.
>
> I would have thought that seen as we haven't come up with a reason for
> not being able to race boats at under FISA weight at club
> competitions, that a boat manufacturer would have done it if they
> could. Given the perception is that lighter is quicker it sounds to
> me like a unique selling point for a manufacturer, such as the crazy
> covering of the fluid design boats. Which might sell a couple of
> boats.
Some of us prefer not to sell boats on the back of techno-bullshit.
Sorry, but I don't find it ethical to con the paying public. Or are you
suggesting that it is OK to part the misinformed from their money? In
which case, a look across the Irish Sea right now might suggest why this
is not a good way to go.
>
> I guess that maybe why we haven't seen it could be one (or more) of
> many reasons such as:
> - unable to make a boat lighter that the FISA minimum (Carl might be
> able to but other less skilled builders not)
Any fool can make a lighter-than-FISA-limit shell. The question is only
by how much. The hard bit is to make a markedly light boat that is not
detectably softer, less reliable or more fragile.
> - too costly to do (to change methods, or the cost analysis shows not
> cost effective as not enough demand)
It is costly - to get it wrong. The taint of a mis-sold product hangs
in the air & over its maker long after that product has been scrapped.
> - the weight they could reduce the boat to is only an order of grams
> rather than kg and as such not worth doing as not a USP
The lightest 1x we've built (for a 78kg sculler) weighed 12.7kg fully
rigged. I only built it that light because the owner & I knew he had
but a short time to live & this lightness was his wish. I would not
wish to do it again, yet that boat had survived almost 20 years of
steady use when I least heard of it.
> - unwilling to make a light boat that would be fragile and ruin their
> reputation due too damaging easily
I think I've already covered that one
>
>
>> In particular, if weight did matter, how on earth is it fairer
>> for competitors of markedly different weights to have to race each other
>> in boats of equal weight? That is pure Orwellian doublethink. Would
>> running races be fairer if all shoes weigh the same?
>
> This is life. Rowing has two weight classifications (usually only one
> at club level events) rather than say boxing which has many. How many
> classifications do you go to?
>
> I would see that letting everyone have any boat they like as being a
> cost saving exercise. If we had many weight classifications, with
> different weight boats allowed for each competitor you would need to
> have voluntees (I prefer volunteers rather than officials) at races
> (I'm thinking club level events here) weighing each boat, and each
> competitor, than keeping track that they were racing in the right
> boat. Competitors would need to buy a new boat each time they changed
> weight, extremely costly for juniors.
I fear that you've missed the point. You weigh yourself in, which
according to some agreed boat/crew weight relationship gives you a
target minimum boat weight. You then put the boat on scales and add
make-weights until it hits the target weight. How much simpler could it
possibly be?
Actually, it could be so much simpler. At international level, scrap
the weight limits. At club level there are no weight limits.
And then let's do a bit of educating.
>
> We could have it that light weights could race lighter boats only, but
> would still require some overhead at club events.
As I said, there are no weight rules for boats outside international
competition. Surely we don't want to go there?
Shells have evolved to be interesting to row through ~150 years of
continuous evolution. How arrogant of blazered persons to presume to
stop any aspect of that development in its tracks, & how ignorant &
complacent of rowers to let it happen.
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
Carl Douglas
> On Nov 23, 3:36 pm, Carl Douglas<c...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote:
>> Walter Martindale wrote:
>>> On Nov 23, 10:53 am, Carl Douglas<c...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Walter Martindale wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 23, 5:01 am, Tink<helen.sander...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I'm not sure I buy the argument from Walter that by making all boats
>>>>>> FISA weight the manufacturers don't run the risk of one of their under
>>>>>> FISA weight boats being used in FISA competition. Those who race in
>>>>>> FISA competitions would surely be careful of this.
>>>>> You'd think that international crews would pay attention but I do
>>>>> recall one of the announcements from the 2010 worlds that someone was
>>>>> nailed for an underweight boat.
>>>>> http://80.83.47.230/pdfswisstiming/000000433_OC_06_045.PDF
>>>>> There, found it -
>>>>> W
>>>> Thanks Walter.
>>
>> boat weight...... Sorry, but I don't believe in fairies.
>>
>> It is so easy to nobble someone else's boat weight, Walter. Before the
>> easy but inconspicuous corner. Then amble past after they've weighed
>> makeweight. Job done. And it's so easy, if you've been shifty with
>> your own boat's weight, to bring it invisibly back up to weight when the
>> rather porous honeycomb boats standing in the sun for a day& losing
>> check weighing. no one has cheated, but they still get labelled as cheats.
>>
>> And please don't tell me that nobbling doesn't happen. Years ago, when
>> the stakes were much lower as rowing was a wholly amateur sport (in the
>> west), I worked with a guy who should have gone to the Olys in a 2-, but
>> No re-row, of course, despite protest& plain evidence of a loose pin.
>> On a somewhat more recent occasion a GB crew accidentally knocked an
>> on the rack, "It'll give 'em a bit more pitch". There are plenty of
>> other instances of similar or worse. It gets passed off as
>> gamesmanship. Sport is not quite as honourable as we'd both wish.
>>
>> So, while I agree entirely with you that in any competition you enter
>> you must obey the rules, that doesn't mean we should approve daft,
>> is it said that we must not question the rule-makers, nor rationally
>> reject their work?
>>
>> Or are we all as gullible as sheep?
>>
>> Cheers -
>> Carl
>>
> Hi Carl,
> I didn't say I necessarily agree with all of the rules as they is
> writ, and I know some pond-scum-who-pass-for-rowing-people cheat, but
> bitching about the rules without actually going to the powers that be
> with evidence that the rule is redundant or past its use-by date and/
> or proposing replacements to bad rules isn't accomplishing much.
> Unless of course you've done that - taken an evidence-based proposal
> for discarding the boat weight minima to your national federation OR
> to the FISA Materials Commission (does it still exist?)... If you have
> done that, what happened? If you haven't done it - you probably among
> this group of RSRers have the best knowledge and resources to make a
> strong case...
> FISA Congress meets every so often to review rules - I didn't pay it
> much attention last time because I wasn't coaching national crews, but
> the boat minima survived the last round of which I'm aware. Must have
> - they're still in the rules that are posted on worldrowing.com.
I reckon I do, & have always done, my bit for rowing in one way &
another. No doubt we all have. It's too easy for others to tell a busy
person to take on yet another challenge. No thanks! I am all too
familiar with how hard you have to work to get worthwhile change, even
when this might save lives. And that's because rowers can be a pretty
apathetic lot - doubtless 'cos they're always so darned tired! But I'm
happy to open the eyes & educate those who will be much more affected
than I am by such pointless regulations. If they care about not having
stupid rules, let them act. I'll provide the ammunition.
Regarding boat weights:
I don't give a damn if properly informed rowers are happy to be stuck
with a stupid, pointless & worthless rule which gives worthless jobs to
supernumerary blazers & add needless worries to already stressed
competitors & coaches. Sadly, rowers are woefully under-informed, as
this correspondence & much other has shown. The boat-weight rule has no
factual justification. It should go.
Minimum weight were FISA's way, in the early 1980's, of kidding itself
it was doing good. The prime reason given then, as they went round
seeing what boats weighed before introducing the rule, was "to prevent
an arms war". There was no sign of any arms war, then or since. And no
evidence that, within range of boat weights then in world finals, the
weight made any statistically significant difference one way or the
other. You just had boat builders doing what their kind had always done
- experimenting with methods & materials to satisfy the whims of their
clients. This costs a bit at first, may bring a few problems, but the
market & production volumes soon sort that out. And, with luck, the
sport benefits.
Experimentation was how clinker wherries evolved into racing sculling
boats, & whalers into racing eights. But evolution ought not to be
arbitrarily stopped in its tracks. In fact design evolution had
markedly slowed by the 1980's with the advent of moulded composites
needing costly moulds. When every boat was hand-built, change was
easier to introduce. With large capital investments in fixed tooling,
better designs are harder to justify & experiments less likely.
FWIW, I have a feeling, recalling how at that time FISA cosied up so
obsequiously to the obviously drug enhancing E. Bloc federations, that
the only people feeling the equipment cost pinch were those already
spending far too much on pharmaceuticals.
>
> I had the good fortune to coach a young woman who (after I was fairly
> certain I checked over her boat) blasted down the race course in an
> inter-provincial "games" competition in her single, got off the water,
> and complained that she couldn't row any more and that she was
> catching crabs every stroke... (she only won her heat by 2 lengths) -
> when I looked at her boat, the pin on her port rigger was loose by at
> least 3 mm, and she didn't know why her blade was crabbing every
> stroke... Reassured that the race problems weren't her fault, and in
> the final with the pins re-rechecked, she won by a greater margin.
> Was it me failing to tighten her pin? Was it someone else loosening
> her pin? I have no idea, but since then I do, in 'serious'
> competition, check every boat over before it goes on the water for
> races. and then it's not let out of sight before it is taken to race.
> There isn't the time for that at little club regattas, but I do like
> the phrase used by boxing referees before each match - "Protect
> yourself at all times."
> W
>
>
Difficult to mount a 24/7 guard on boats at a regatta. Impossible to
prevent interference unless each team keeps its boats inside locked up
containers. It is easier to ensure that racing does not occur under
blatantly unfair conditions - but that seems to have been beyond some folk.
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
Tink
> URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk(boats) &www.aerowing.co.uk(riggers)
Thankyou for the discussion Carl
Walter Martindale
>
>
> Difficult to mount a 24/7 guard on boats at a regatta. Impossible to
> prevent interference unless each team keeps its boats inside locked up
> containers.
> Carl
>
>
It's not a 24/7 guard - check the boat over starting 2 h before the
race, and make sure someone (coaches, rowers, the crew) from the team
can see the boat from then until the boat goes on the water.
W