Vespoli MatriX
Erik Peter Rau
MatriX single. I'm in the market for a new boat and the price seems
attractive. Is it suitable for racing? Thanks in advance.
--
Erik P. Rau
er...@udel.edu
Andy and Abbe Lynch
say its fairly suitable for racing. I've rowed one a couple of times. I like
it a lot. I don't think you can beat it in terms of combining quality and
price. If I were in the market for a new boat , I would definitely consider
it strongly.
Andy
fort...@nls.net
I love my Vespoli Matrix. Love it. I've made this same post before
back in the fall, when others were asking about the Matrix. No one else
was making a truly lightweight single for a 120 pound person. Most
other manufacturers just take a saw and chop off the ends. Vespoli
built a new mold for these. There may be an Empacher or other Euro
brand that's for small people, but those were out of my price range, and
frankly, I can't drive to the factory if I feel like it, and I liked
being able to do that. I'm in the 24 foot one, the smallest. Terrific
craftsmanship, great speed, sets up well, a beauty of a boat. Is it
good for racing? I've medalled in it every time except the Charles
(where a Matrix won one of the singles events). This lightweight
masters rower (who races at least 8 times a year and is serious about
it) is thrilled, and I feel I've got the boat I'll have the rest of my
life.
I didn't need the oars that come with the package, fyi, but I did buy
the rack Vespoli offers, and they custom make boat covers for them, too.
For a shell that's 4 feet shorter than other singles, an off-the-shelf
Burnham cover, while nice, wouldn't fit.
Kelly Blazek
Cleveland, OH
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ed
>Erik-
>I love my Vespoli Matrix. Love it. I've made this same post before
>back in the fall, when others were asking about the Matrix. No one else
>was making a truly lightweight single for a 120 pound person. Most
>other manufacturers just take a saw and chop off the ends. Vespoli
>built a new mold for these. There may be an Empacher or other Euro
>brand that's for small people, but those were out of my price range, and
>frankly,
I believe that Kaschper is also building a true lightweight women's
single.
Ed
Steven Maynard-Moody
Steven M-M
Steven Maynard-Moody
>
> Durham and St. Catharines are as well.
>
> Steven M-M
I wasn't very clear unless you read the previous post:
"Durham and St. Catharines are making women's lightweight or
featherweight singles as well as Vespoli."
Sorry,
smm
Carl Douglas
that Carl Douglas Racing Shells has always built, as part of our range
of weight-scaled hull sizes, a single specifically designed (*not* a
cut-down big boat) for under-60kg scullers?
Cheers -
Carl
Carl Douglas Racing Shells
(for AeRoWing low-drag Riggers & Fine Small-Boats)
The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JZ, Great Britain
URL http://www.rowing-cdrs.demon.co.uk TEL +44 (0) 1784-456344
E-mail carld...@rowing-cdrs.demon.co.uk FAX +44 (0) 1784-466550
Leo Lazauskas
Carl Douglas <row...@rowing-cdrs.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Steven Maynard-Moody <stev...@lark.cc.ukans.edu> writes
> >Steven Maynard-Moody wrote:
> >> Durham and St. Catharines are as well.
> >"Durham and St. Catharines are making women's lightweight or
> >featherweight singles as well as Vespoli."
add
> that Carl Douglas Racing Shells has always built, as part of our range
> of weight-scaled hull sizes, a single specifically designed (*not* a
> cut-down big boat) for under-60kg scullers?
>
Might as well put me on the list as well. :) My customised designs can
take into account the crew's individual force-time curves, their body
shapes, their expected speed range (no point in designing for world
record times if the crew has no chance of ever achieving them), as well
as several other factors that can squeeze out that extra couple of
percent in performance.
Generic designs are just a lucky dip ;)
Leo.
Carl Douglas
Leo -
You're a designer & so am I. I try always to be sure that what I claim
for our products I can justify not only from theory but also from
practical measurement.
Because I sense hype in what you say above, rather than the level of
scientifically-sound information I'd hope to get from you, I have some
honest & earnest questions for you:
1. Do you have boats built & in service, in which case why not give your
trading nameplate, or are you still building only on paper?
2. Have you the hard, factual, practical evidence that your boats will
give any crew or rower "a couple of percent on performance" - which must
be read as 2% faster? That represents a claimed power saving at any
given speed of around 8%. Or is this still only a mathematical theory
(however well respected)?
3. Will you enlighten us on how, at an affordable price, you'll build
each boat to the precise dimensions for the exact & ideal boat for each
of the infinity (nearly) of human shapes, sizes & technical foibles?
4. What will happen when that boat has to be used by another crew, for
whom it, clearly, cannot have been optimised, or the crew's techniques
improve (requiring, by your account, a different optimal hull)?
5. Please define your interpretation of a "generic design" - do you mean
one of those ubiquitous Empacher clones, or do you spread the net wider?
Over to you
Leo Lazauskas
> >Leo.
>
> You're a designer & so am I. I try always to be sure that what I
claim
> for our products I can justify not only from theory but also from
> practical measurement.
I'd love to see your drag predictions and measurements. Are they
available publically so that buyers can compare them with the
predictions and measurements of alternatives? Do any hull manufacturers
publish their predictions and experiments?
> Because I sense hype in what you say above, rather than the level of
> scientifically-sound information I'd hope to get from you, I have some
> honest & earnest questions for you:
Not just hype. It was bait for an argument too.
> 1. Do you have boats built & in service, in which case why not give
your
> trading nameplate, or are you still building only on paper?
I dont personally build boats. I consult to several rowing shell,
kayak, and model boat builders as well as to some defense organisations
who use my ideas and computer-predictions in their designs. Several
have built models and verified my predictions in towing tanks.
> 2. Have you the hard, factual, practical evidence that your boats will
> give any crew or rower "a couple of percent on performance" - which
must
> be read as 2% faster? That represents a claimed power saving at any
> given speed of around 8%.
More at some speeds, less at others. It depends on the design speed,
the hulls that are used as a baseline, the depth and temperature of the
water, the rowing-induced motions that are assumed and several other
factors. One set of (strawmen) hulls I use are Empacher singles, King
doubles, Filter fours and Vespoli eights. I often use this set because
I think it represents a good set of generic hulls, ones that most
people are familiar with. The Vespoli eights are pretty good in shallow
water and so that hull is essential in most comparisons even though the
hull's advantage in shallow water is not realised in modern, deeper
facilities.
I'm glad that you are sceptical about the claim of a 2% improvement. It
does seem large. But have you ever estimated the difference in
hydrodynamic drag between a hull in say, 10C temperature water and 20C?
That alone can account for 2%. Other factors can account for easily as
much again, but the effects are not always simply additive.
>Or is this still only a mathematical theory (however well respected)?
I have a lot of experimental data that I compare with my computer
models. These include results for multihulls, submarines, transom stern
destroyers, model hulls used in tank tests, America's Cup yachts and
full-size kayaks and rowing shells.
> 3. Will you enlighten us on how, at an affordable price, you'll build
> each boat to the precise dimensions for the exact & ideal boat for
each
> of the infinity (nearly) of human shapes, sizes & technical foibles?
Whoa there. I never said that they were affordable by everyone. Of
course customised designs are expensive to build. So are high-
performance racing cars. My point is that a hull bought off-the-shelf
might be perfect for one crew and go like a Ferrari. For others it
might handle like a Lada.
> 4. What will happen when that boat has to be used by another crew, for
> whom it, clearly, cannot have been optimised, or the crew's techniques
> improve (requiring, by your account, a different optimal hull)?
Clearly another crew would not (necessarily) suit the boat. Buying a
2nd hand hull is almost the same as buying a generic.
Whether a crew needs a new hull because their technique has improved
depends on what the crew are likely to improve, by how much and whether
it has been taken into account in the design. In short, it depends on
what objective function is used in the design.
>5. Please define your interpretation of a "generic design" - do you
mean
> one of those ubiquitous Empacher clones, or do you spread the net
wider?
Much wider. For example, a hull advertised as "designed for a 60 kg
rower" - which is where this thread sort of started.
As for the ubiquitous clones? They aren't too bad. I've looked at a few
Empacher hulls in detail and they have one particularly interesting
hydrodynamic feature (I think it is probably common to all their
designs) that makes them very competitive. As far as generic hulls go.
But, just as with the Vespoli eight, the hydrodynamic advantage isn't
always able to be realised.
>Over to you.
Your kick.
fort...@nls.net
I looked at St. Catharine's boats. They're practically made of
foamcore. Very pretty, but that price reflects a much less expensive
construction and materials. Someone in our boathouse bought one and it
looks like the surface of a golfball. He's very unhappy with it. Once
you hit something, the material stays dented. I row in a river with
tires, telephone poles, trees, furniture, etc. etc. and a shell
construction method like St. Catharine's wouldn't last 10 minutes. May
be a great solution if you're rowing on a relatively debris-free body of
water, and want more of a value price. Vespoli shells are tough
stuff...I've never had a skeg fall off a Vespoli in a 1x (I've rowed
their Millennium and the Matrix), or in their 2x, no matter how much
crap i hit.
As for Durhams, my criteria in a search for a lightweight 1x was a
proven racing shell built by a world class boat builder. I didn't see
any Durhams at Worlds...someone correct me if I'm wrong. I did see a
whole lotta black Vespolis, though. Durhams aren't known for singles;
they're known for yellow 8s bought by tons of high schools and colleges.
Kelly "Old Lady Sculler" in Cleveland
and a very happy Vespoli 1x customer
Steven Maynard-Moody
Actually St. Catharines shells used to be made of carbon fiber on closed
cell foam, the same materials used (I believe) by Pocock, one of the
most durable shells on the market. They are now made with honey-comb
core. They made the change for speed of production, not durability, as
anyone who has damaged honeycomb will surely acknowledge.
I believe Kelly is confusing Durham with Dirigo, another maker of yellow
boats. Durham has long produced FISA hulls and now has a complete line
of Klau Filter designed boats. Both St. Cats and Durham use the
Filter/FISA designs which are made by many boat builders and are very
present in World Championships. I didn't count but I suspect that
Empacher-based and Filter-based hulls account for over 75% of the
smaller shells rowed at the Worlds.
Steven M-M
stephen schaffran
Trained by John Weyhausen at Berkeley, I've read many of your papers and
have a great respect for your work. What you've written to Carl makes a lot
of sense too.
Now, this comment in your last post is just too tantalizing to pass up:
> As for the ubiquitous clones? They aren't too bad. I've looked at a few
> Empacher hulls in detail and they have one particularly interesting
> hydrodynamic feature (I think it is probably common to all their
> designs) that makes them very competitive. As far as generic hulls go.
> But, just as with the Vespoli eight, the hydrodynamic advantage isn't
> always able to be realised.
It would be wonderful if you could identify this "particularly interesting
hydrodynamic feature," and give a little explanation.
Best regards, Steve Schaffran
Leo Lazauskas
"stephen schaffran" <step...@schaffran.com> wrote:
> Trained by John Weyhausen at Berkeley...
snip
Lucky you! His influence on hydrodynamics has been immense.
> Now, this comment in your last post is just too tantalizing to pass
>up:
> > As for the ubiquitous clones? They aren't too bad. I've looked at a
few
> > Empacher hulls in detail and they have one particularly interesting
> > hydrodynamic feature (I think it is probably common to all their
> > designs) that makes them very competitive. As far as generic hulls
go.
> > But, just as with the Vespoli eight, the hydrodynamic advantage
isn't
> > always able to be realised.
> It would be wonderful if you could identify this "particularly
interesting
> hydrodynamic feature," and give a little explanation.
I can't give you too many details because I found this out under
contract to a shell builder who is about to launch a new series of
hulls in the next few weeks. But I can tell you how to find it out for
yourself. :)
If you plot the drag components (wave, frictional and form etc) for
many hulls from different designers and scale them in an "appropriate"
fashion, certain similarities appear. The curves for some drag
components will look similar to each other, e.g. all Empacher drag
component curves will look similar to each other, all Ausrowtech curves
will look similar to each other too, but different to the Empacher
curves. From those curves, it is possible to glean a hint of the
"design philosophy" that has been employed by the various designers.
Now, for some speed ranges some hull designs will have superior
characteristics - i.e. a particular drag component will be lower than
those for all other hull designs under investigation. Of course this
doesn't necessarily make those hulls superior to all other designs in
all respects because one particular "hydrodynamic advantage" may have
been attained at the expense of other drag components or the designer
may have sacrificed stability to get the advantage. What is useful (at
least to eggheads like me) is to discover the hydrodynamic strengths
and weaknesses of various designs and to use the good aspects in my own
designs, hopefully without compromising other important design factors.
For example, the Vespoli hull has very good shallow water wave drag.
Scragg and Nelson, in their famous 1993 paper "The design of an eight-
oared rowing shell", give some insights into how they improved the
shallow water performance. However, that advantage is not realised in
very deep water. Similarly, the "hydrodynamic advantage" I spoke of in
relation to the Empachers is also not always realisable for all speeds,
and when rowing-induced motions are included. When it is and when it
isn't is my little secret ;)
Sorry for being (deliberately) obtuse, but that's about all the detail
I can give away without my soon-to-be employer monstering me for giving
away design secrets.
Regards,
Carl Douglas
>In article <c$Ve4AAWU...@rowing-cdrs.demon.co.uk>,
> Carl Douglas <row...@rowing-cdrs.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Leo Lazauskas <kitd...@adelaide.on.net> writes
>claim
>> for our products I can justify not only from theory but also from
>> practical measurement.
>
>I'd love to see your drag predictions and measurements. Are they
>available publically so that buyers can compare them with the
>predictions and measurements of alternatives? Do any hull manufacturers
>publish their predictions and experiments?
>
>> Because I sense hype in what you say above, rather than the level of
>> scientifically-sound information I'd hope to get from you, I have some
>> honest & earnest questions for you:
Leo, to turn my implied question back unanswered is a tactic, not an
answer.
My answer to your question is the measured & reasonable one that we find
our boats measurably faster than the best-regarded opposition in fairly-
conducted tests, & have yet to have a client complain of a decrease in
performance when changing to our products. If in doubt, a) try one on
the water & b) ask those who have them. My performance predictions are
not for publication, & I'd never dream of promoting a product on
predicted performance. What others do is up to them.
>> 1. Do you have boats built & in service, in which case why not give
>your
>> trading nameplate, or are you still building only on paper?
>
>I dont personally build boats. I consult to several rowing shell,
>kayak, and model boat builders as well as to some defense organisations
>who use my ideas and computer-predictions in their designs. Several
>have built models and verified my predictions in towing tanks.
Thanks for clarifying. As an academic you live by research, publication
(the academic's version of marketing) & consultancy. Indeed, I recall
you offering us your services, which I appreciated. As a manufacturer I
live by design, manufacture, marketing & customer satisfaction, & not
just of rowing shells & accessories. But I eschew unfounded claims for
hardware performance
Your work is well-known, but a wise person remains sceptical of an
unrevealed product seemingly promoted on theoretical, not measured,
performance. I recall the over-promotion with Carbocraft in the mid-70s
- "carbon boats so fast & light they are unfair to the competition" went
the claims. Carbo went bust soon after I forced the issue (despite 3
threats of Libel action in the UK Courts) & it was publicly shown that
their (part carbon) shells were as heavy as the wooden shells from which
they'd been flop-copied (& from which so many current hulls are still
replicated).
>> 2. Have you the hard, factual, practical evidence that your boats will
>> give any crew or rower "a couple of percent on performance" - which
>must
>> be read as 2% faster? That represents a claimed power saving at any
>> given speed of around 8%.
>
>More at some speeds, less at others. It depends on the design speed,
>the hulls that are used as a baseline, the depth and temperature of the
>water, the rowing-induced motions that are assumed and several other
>factors. One set of (strawmen) hulls I use are Empacher singles, King
>doubles, Filter fours and Vespoli eights. I often use this set because
>I think it represents a good set of generic hulls, ones that most
>people are familiar with. The Vespoli eights are pretty good in shallow
>water and so that hull is essential in most comparisons even though the
>hull's advantage in shallow water is not realised in modern, deeper
>facilities.
>
>I'm glad that you are sceptical about the claim of a 2% improvement. It
>does seem large. But have you ever estimated the difference in
>hydrodynamic drag between a hull in say, 10C temperature water and 20C?
>That alone can account for 2%. Other factors can account for easily as
>much again, but the effects are not always simply additive.
>
You aren't really saying your new design will have to row in hotter
water than the opposition, are you. It's a lovely idea, but will FISA
approve?
No, I know you didn't mean that, but I sense a little backtracking on
the implied 8% power-reduction claim. Sure, if everything fell just
right for your design & everything fell wrong for the others, then
........
>>Or is this still only a mathematical theory (however well respected)?
>
>I have a lot of experimental data that I compare with my computer
>models. These include results for multihulls, submarines, transom stern
>destroyers, model hulls used in tank tests, America's Cup yachts and
>full-size kayaks and rowing shells.
>
As I've already said, your work is well-regarded.
>> 3. Will you enlighten us on how, at an affordable price, you'll build
>> each boat to the precise dimensions for the exact & ideal boat for
>each
>> of the infinity (nearly) of human shapes, sizes & technical foibles?
>
>Whoa there. I never said that they were affordable by everyone. Of
>course customised designs are expensive to build. So are high-
>performance racing cars. My point is that a hull bought off-the-shelf
>might be perfect for one crew and go like a Ferrari. For others it
>might handle like a Lada.
>
I'd naturally agree. But the clearest reading of your words was that
your designs would be tailor-made for the user. But just don't tell the
boys at Marinello that a Ferrari could ever, ever handle like a Lada!
>> 4. What will happen when that boat has to be used by another crew, for
>> whom it, clearly, cannot have been optimised, or the crew's techniques
>> improve (requiring, by your account, a different optimal hull)?
>
>Clearly another crew would not (necessarily) suit the boat. Buying a
>2nd hand hull is almost the same as buying a generic.
>
>Whether a crew needs a new hull because their technique has improved
>depends on what the crew are likely to improve, by how much and whether
>it has been taken into account in the design. In short, it depends on
>what objective function is used in the design.
>
That can mean all things to all people. Shall we be seeing 1-offs again
(as with the traditional boat-builders who, before everyone went for
moulds, did so much, so cheaply, to advance the design of the equipment
for our sport, albeit usually by whim, trial & error in those days)?
Will they be affordable? Will competitors complain of a technology war
ripping holes in their pockets? What will FISA then do (they'd love to
legislate on equipment again, I think)?
>>5. Please define your interpretation of a "generic design" - do you
>mean
>> one of those ubiquitous Empacher clones, or do you spread the net
>wider?
>
>Much wider. For example, a hull advertised as "designed for a 60 kg
>rower" - which is where this thread sort of started.
>
Is the long-overdue acknowledgement among some other builders that <60kg
rowers deserve different hulls such a bad thing?
>As for the ubiquitous clones? They aren't too bad. I've looked at a few
>Empacher hulls in detail and they have one particularly interesting
>hydrodynamic feature (I think it is probably common to all their
>designs) that makes them very competitive. As far as generic hulls go.
>But, just as with the Vespoli eight, the hydrodynamic advantage isn't
>always able to be realised.
>
Those Empacher heavyweight hulls are very similar to theirs of many
years back (& I could take them back a bit further too). I believe the
small Empacher sculls are Klaus Filter's FISA-hull shape. A common
hydrodynamic feature unites those hulls? Do tell ;-)
>
>Not just hype. It was bait for an argument too.
Leo, my starting point is that there are too few designers in rowing,
too few "designed" boats & too little originality. So I wish you luck
in your latest venture. If it advances the sport, that's great.
But if we are occasionally to argue (should we need to?) then let it be
in the cause of providing useful technical information to our fellows on
RSR (as they do in their areas of expertise). Otherwise they'll get
mightily bored &/or smell commercial hype (perish the thought!)
Cheers -
alis...@hotmail.com
like Empacher and Filter designs, is there anyone able to tell me what
sort of moulds are used by builders such as Sykes/Ausrowtec/LP etx?
I'm looking to buy a 2nd hand 85-90kg scull this winter, and I'd be
interested to get opinions from those who have rowed these boats (or
even own one which they'd like to sell $4000-5000 or so!)
Thankx,
Al
Leo Lazauskas
Carl Douglas <row...@rowing-cdrs.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Leo Lazauskas <kitd...@adelaide.on.net> writes
> >In article <c$Ve4AAWU...@rowing-cdrs.demon.co.uk>,
> > Carl Douglas <row...@rowing-cdrs.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Leo Lazauskas <kitd...@adelaide.on.net> writes
> >> You're a designer & so am I. I try always to be sure that what I
> >claim
> >> for our products I can justify not only from theory but also from
> >> practical measurement.
> >
> >I'd love to see your drag predictions and measurements. Are they
> >available publically so that buyers can compare them with the
> >predictions and measurements of alternatives? Do any hull
manufacturers
> >publish their predictions and experiments?
> >
> Leo, to turn my implied question back unanswered is a tactic, not an
> answer.
No, I was just wondering how you "scientifically" justify the claims
for your hulls.
> My answer to your question is the measured & reasonable one that we
find
> our boats measurably faster than the best-regarded opposition in
fairly-
> conducted tests ...
What do you mean by "fairly-conducted" tests?
>... My performance predictions are not for publication...
Not yet. But I'm working on it :)
> >I dont personally build boats...
> Thanks for clarifying. As an academic you...
I am not, nor have I ever been an academic. I have rooms at a Uni, but
that's all. I know what you mean though - if it walks like a duck,
talks like a duck, and yeah, rows like a duck... ;)
>Your work is well-known, but a wise person remains sceptical of an
> unrevealed product seemingly promoted on theoretical, not measured,
> performance.
Depends on what you mean by "measured" performance. Independent,
reproducible, tank tests including all rowing-induced motions would be
one way, But that would clearly be expensive (and ultimately probably
inconclusive as Scragg and Nelson found).
> >I'm glad that you are sceptical about the claim of a 2% improvement.
It
> >does seem large. But have you ever estimated the difference in
> >hydrodynamic drag between a hull in say, 10C temperature water and
20C?
> >That alone can account for 2%. Other factors can account for easily
as
> >much again, but the effects are not always simply additive.
> >
> You aren't really saying your new design will have to row in hotter
> water than the opposition, are you. It's a lovely idea, but will FISA
> approve?
You misunderstood and I wasn't clear. I meant two boats designed for
different water temperatures. Of course one isn't going to race in a
hot water lane and the other in cold water.
> No, I know you didn't mean that, but I sense a little backtracking on
> the implied 8% power-reduction claim. Sure, if everything fell just
> right for your design & everything fell wrong for the others, then
> ........
In that case it could be more than 2%. In fact it could be much more -
e.g. put all the weakest members of an eight on one side of the boat.
But that would not be a fair comparison. The strawman must be a
reasonable competitor! :)
> >> 3. Will you enlighten us on how, at an affordable price,
> >> you'll build each boat to the precise dimensions...
> >Whoa there... snip ...
> >I never said that they were affordable by everyone.
> I'd naturally agree. But the clearest reading of your words was that
> your designs would be tailor-made for the user.
That hasn't changed. Our main series of hulls will be "generics". All I
claimed was that I *can* also design shells taking into account
specific individuals' biomechanical factors and performance, and that
that can lead to improvements of around 2%. In fact, I think that for
novice rowers the improvement can be even higher.
> >Whether a crew needs a new hull because their technique has improved
> >depends on what the crew are likely to improve, by how much and
whether
> >it has been taken into account in the design. In short, it depends on
> >what objective function is used in the design.
> >
> That can mean all things to all people. Shall we be seeing 1-offs
again... snip
I hope so. They are not the best choice for everyone because the "best"
choice also depends on factors like price, durability, aesthetics etc.
The best choice for some might be a disposable hull - one that is built
to last for one race only. But not many can afford to be that
profligate.
> ...Will competitors complain of a technology war ripping holes in
>their pockets? What will FISA then do (they'd love to
> legislate on equipment again, I think)?
IMO FISA need to tighten up definitions and limitations on equipment.
Incidentally, I looked up the latest FISA WWW page to see if limits on
hull weights have changed. In the text, their rules pages say that the
hull weights are "defined below", but the weights are not specified on
any subsequent pages.
> Is the long-overdue acknowledgement among some other builders that
> 60kg rowers deserve different hulls such a bad thing?
Not at all. It is a very good thing. As is acknowledgement that
sprinters, school-age rowers and 70-year-olds each need their own
specific designs.
> >As for the ubiquitous clones? They aren't too bad. I've looked at a
few
> >Empacher hulls in detail and they have one particularly interesting
> >hydrodynamic feature (I think it is probably common to all their
> >designs) that makes them very competitive. As far as generic hulls
go. ...
> Those Empacher heavyweight hulls are very similar to theirs of many
> years back (& I could take them back a bit further too). I believe
the
> small Empacher sculls are Klaus Filter's FISA-hull shape. A common
> hydrodynamic feature unites those hulls? Do tell ;-)
If you do the drag component analysis I suggested in a response to
another question in the thread, Filter's hull results will not
necessarily be the same as other Empacher hulls. All Filter designs
will probably have some distinguishable, consistent pattern though. The
way parallel middlebody is used can be a dead give-away for some
designers on larger hulls. The free wave spectrum for some of these
hulls is like a fingerprint :)
> >Not just hype. It was bait for an argument too.
> Leo, my starting point is that there are too few designers in rowing,
> too few "designed" boats & too little originality.
I can't argue with that. :(
Have you ever been able to get a clear answer from a lawyer as to what
constitutes a "patentable" hull shape? I know Vespoli tried to get
protection for an eight (?) a few years ago. It does seem somewhat
unfair to some designers that their work can be used by others without
any recompense.
> But if we are occasionally to argue (should we need to?) ...
No, but it's more interesting than getting all cuddly and agreeable in
a public form . That would turn off the RSR readers just as fast as my
commercial hype or "mine-is-better-than-yours" nonsense.
Cheers,
Leo Lazauskas
alis...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Looking at all the stuff about the use of "generic" moulds and shapes
> like Empacher and Filter designs, is there anyone able to tell me what
> sort of moulds are used by builders such as Sykes/Ausrowtec/LP etx?
>
> I'm looking to buy a 2nd hand 85-90kg scull this winter, and I'd be
> interested to get opinions from those who have rowed these boats (or
> even own one which they'd like to sell $4000-5000 or so!)
>
Hi Al,
I think you might get more responses if you also posted a separate
"Wanted to buy" note instead of just hanging it from this somewhat
esoteric thread.
Nick Suess
Leo Lazauskas <kitd...@adelaide.on.net> wrote in message
news:8dbm0h$1d7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> .....Incidentally, I looked up the latest FISA WWW page to see if limits
on
> hull weights have changed. In the text, their rules pages say that the
> hull weights are "defined below", but the weights are not specified on
> any subsequent pages.
Yes, I noticed this last year, and wrote politely to FISA telling them that
their "defined below" boat weights were not in fact defined at all on the
site. They didn't see fit to reply, nor apparently to correct the oversight.
Does this mean that all those panjandrums weighing boats are in fact
figments of their own power-crazed imaginations?
Carl, we know that despite your very deep love of FISA, you have battled
long and hard against their imposition of minimum weights. What do you think
is the current state of play on this? Has FISA gone into a bunker and
decided the weights will now be cast in concrete for all time, or do they
ever review the minima, or the need for them at all?
Carl Douglas
>on
>> hull weights have changed. In the text, their rules pages say that the
>> hull weights are "defined below", but the weights are not specified on
>> any subsequent pages.
>
>their "defined below" boat weights were not in fact defined at all on the
>site. They didn't see fit to reply, nor apparently to correct the oversight.
>
>Does this mean that all those panjandrums weighing boats are in fact
>figments of their own power-crazed imaginations?
>
>Carl, we know that despite your very deep love of FISA,
around in their kit looking severe & important at regattas, to fix up
Leo's special hot-water lane if you go round saying unkind things?
> you have battled
>long and hard against their imposition of minimum weights. What do you think
>is the current state of play on this? Has FISA gone into a bunker and
>decided the weights will now be cast in concrete for all time, or do they
>ever review the minima, or the need for them at all?
No, it's not the weights. It's the boats that they'll cast in concrete.
Clearly you haven't been paying attention.
Today we have perfect rowing equipment; further development is futile;
for you the war is over. We, who have never built a boat in our lives,
know exactly what they must weigh. Soon we will also know how long they
must be (we already know how long the longest piece may be), then what
colours, and finally what shape & who may build them. For little people
wanting to race in our regattas we have already made special
arrangements in the interests of fairness: their boats must weigh just
as much as those the giants use. What could be fairer? But what is
this special minimum boat weight which magically makes everything fair &
even between folk of different sizes? We won't tell you that!
Please remember, it is FISA that wants every new boat to carry a "very
important plate" marked with its all-up weight. So, if you change the
seats or riggers for something better & maybe lighter your boat is now
illegal for international competition (can't be that the plate is just
worthless twaddle?). And if it ends up 300gm (for a single) or 1kg (the
rest) below the now-unrevealed minimum weights it will be illegal to
ballast it up to that mystic figure. It ain't just cephalopods that are
suckers.
Carl's First Law: If it ain't broke, don't legislate
Carl's Second Law: Officials' sole purpose should be to facilitate, &
otherwise to keep out of the way
Carl's Third Law: No-one needs officious officials
And the rower kissed the frog, which promptly turned into a committee,
saying: and I shall make unto thee laws, then shall I burden thee with
regulations, next shall I demand of thee most special respect &
attention unto myself, whereat I shall snuggle myself up to the not-so-
lovely IOC (verily, that which sought mightily to get the Philistine
Andrew Jennings put privily away, in that he did dare to spill the beans
upon corruption therein), and I shall dwell in thy house for ever. Amen
Still, it'll be dandy in the FISA family stand at Sydney (if you're
chosen). Now that's what I call a *real* contribution towards the
sport.
That's blown it (again)
:)
Steven Maynard-Moody
>
> The best choice for some might be a disposable hull - one that is built
> to last for one race only.
I can see landfills overflowing with disposable rowing shells piled next
to the disposable diapers and all the other worthless junk we buy.
Maybe they could be recycled like soda bottles into fleece. Maybe this
is something FISA should regulate.
STeven M-M
Lucani
most money to buy the best equipment. The already high costs of boats means
that some crews are less competitive than others due to the fact that they
cannot afford the latest boats.
I have personally suffered this when I had to race in a boat which was
considered to be approximately 8 seconds slower over 2000m than any of the
other boats in the race. This was an extreme case, and did not have as much
to do with money as it did to do with circumstances, yet it helps illustrate
the point that a standard in rowing equipment will help eliminate such
discrimination and will lead to a "purer" race where the fastest CREW wins.
Thus I am in favour of FISA legislation on equipment to a certain degree, as
long as it does not get ridiculous.
Please don't misquote me, I am not against innovation per say, but if it is
not easily available to everyone and leads to an unfair advantage I would
question it's need.
Carl Douglas
I think you'll find that boat prices have not changed out of proportion
with other manufactured goods' prices
If there is no progress (& there's little enough in rowing already),
interest in the sport & quality of the products will decline
An eight which is
>8 seconds slower over 2000m
has a power consumption due to fluid friction around 10% greater than
the boat you're comparing it to. As a designer & builder, I think it
very improbable that your despised shell's hull, alone, is that much
more draggy, unless very poorly maintained (lumps instead of neat
repairs, bent fin, twisted rudder). But, as a fittings manufacturer,
I'd say that failure to maintain or upgrade riggers, seats, slides &
stretchers can easily make that difference & more - for surprisingly
much smaller amounts than you'd need for new boats.
I don't apply this to you (how can I?) but I know of rowers reluctant to
keep boats in good condition yet quick to blame their failures on their
neglected equipment. Keener maintenance, better results, fewer excuses
& active fund-raising do often go hand in hand with harder training. So
does third-party support. On the other hand, many who enjoy club rowing
for a fairly small outlay compared, e.g., with what they'd spend on
their computing & Internet connections, see no reason to dip into their
pockets for the better equipment they say would improve their results.
Winning is not primarily about having the best equipment, but having
good equipment in which you have a personal investment is certainly a
powerful incentive to train harder & perform better. Good results are
most strongly related to high fitness, motivation & good rowing;
quality of equipment (dare I say it) matters a fair bit less.
Cheers-
freakshow
look, Ausrowtec flogs Vespoli designs from the USA and they are SHIT....dont
buy one...you'll just cry later on. Having said that, Vaclav Chalupa rowed
in one this year (rumour is that was much to his chagrin) and Jimmy and Drew
won the 2- WC in a specififcly built boat by Ausrowtec. The foursome
apparently have been redesiging the wheel over there with padol and derwin.
Anyways, from my experiences, I would avoid them.
Sykes are a fantastic boat...some like Tim McLaren would argue they're
better than Empacher...in some cases I'd agree...sykesy makes his own
shapes. The AUS team have won more medals in sykes boats by a voluminous
number than they have in their pale yellow coloured friends.
Euro are made by HP Madritsch who used to run WM's asia-pac operation, but
whe the whoel thing went sour, he made his own brand....Euro.
They're not bad boats...the sculls are an exact Empacher K12 and K13
mould...but with his wing rigger bolted on. I used one of these last year
for national selection etc, but just got an Empacher, so I dont have much
use for it anymore.
If you're verging on elite ranks or not willing to wait 6-10 months like
sykesy MAY make you wait for a boat...Euro's are great...but be very niggly
about quality with him...otherwise a good boat...
I have the said Racing Scull for sale for about 5500 ono if you're
interested, I am in Sydney.
More later
Freakboy
<alis...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8dbha2$smd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>Looking at all the stuff about the use of "generic" moulds and shapes
>like Empacher and Filter designs, is there anyone able to tell me what
>sort of moulds are used by builders such as Sykes/Ausrowtec/LP etx?
>
>I'm looking to buy a 2nd hand 85-90kg scull this winter, and I'd be
>interested to get opinions from those who have rowed these boats (or
>even own one which they'd like to sell $4000-5000 or so!)
>
>Thankx,
>
>Al
freakshow
really...you rock.
If only everyone in sport had the same attitude of putting the little man
first... ;-)
Really, all these arguments are silly.
You put Rob Waddell in a wooden clinker boat and hes still going to go fast.
(provided he didnt snap it in half after 1 leg drive)
I bought an Empacher really for 1 reason....it doesn't leave me any
psychological deficit, one less thing to hang a bad performance on. They are
also an excellent boat, but when you line up at WC or OG finals or whatever
your personal rowing denir is, you want to feel (stress the perception) like
your boat is the 'best' or better than your competitors. (Un)fortunately
(depending who you are) Empacher has that psychological game sewn up.
The crux of my point is that it is always the motor not a boat that goes
fast. Only the psychological trauma of rowing in some god forsaken tub-scull
would stop rob waddell or pertti karpinnen or thomas lange from bollocking
everyone in sight.
Really, i think that is the point....all those top line shells are much of a
muchness, various feeling differences etc, but really not much
difference...thats why Xeno Muller destroyed two much more fancied
competitors in Atlanta....he had more balls, more heart and wasn't giving a
rats ass at 300 to go wether or not he was sitting in a Yellow K12. Shorter,
some would argue not as physically impressive, he had the most impressive
will to win....
I suggest some of you stop being 'blinded by the science' and just do an
extra 10 bench pulls or an extra few km's miles next time youu're on the
water...
More freakish hearsay and conjecture later...
Carl Douglas <row...@rowing-cdrs.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:O986oCA7GN$4E...@rowing-cdrs.demon.co.uk...
Paul Slade
Yeah hulls shape and construction are very important. As a builder I do
believe certain shapes have definite advantages, >> degrees of speed and
stablitlity and NB that MENTAL EDGE.
But if and under 15 boys double can get into an "outdated" wooden frame boat
and DESTROY other boats, amongst them Empacher shapes, by 6 lengths to set a
new SA junior record. All the credit has to go to the boys whose desire to
win far surpassed the desire to live and whose hearts are twice as big as
they are!!
The boys know who they are. I hope that one day I will be able to say I
rowed half as hard as they did!
I agree, just do those extra 10 bench pulls!!
freakshow wrote in message <3902...@queen.ans.com.au>...
Nick Suess
freakshow <secur...@zdnetonebox.com> wrote in message
news:3902...@queen.ans.com.au...
>
> ......Sykes are a fantastic boat...some like Tim McLaren would argue
they're
> better than Empacher...in some cases I'd agree...sykesy makes his own
> shapes. The AUS team have won more medals in sykes boats by a voluminous
> number than they have in their pale yellow coloured friends.
Yes, I agree. Sykes represent top quality on Oz. No question. But with their
order book so full, they are damn hard to get hold of unless you are
prepared to wait for many many months, so I'm getting people asking me what
I can get of equivalent quality and value for money at shorter notice. And
if you ask me, I'll tell you.
>
> Euro are made by HP Madritsch who used to run WM's asia-pac operation, but
> whe the whoel thing went sour, he made his own brand....Euro.
Is he making them???
Please correct me if I'm misinformed, but I thought they were all made in
China and he just imports them.
freakshow
He still has his factory there in Drummoyne, still manufacturing boats, but
predominantly sculls now I believe.
Yes, he does import a large number of boats from China.
You bring in the MPS boats right? they're all JOrg Weitenauer designs aren't
they?
Nick Suess <ni...@scull.com.au> wrote in message
news:3906831f$0$21...@motown.iinet.net.au...
Nick Suess
> Nick....
>
> He still has his factory there in Drummoyne, still manufacturing boats,
but
> predominantly sculls now I believe.
>
> Yes, he does import a large number of boats from China.
Thanks for the correction.
> You bring in the MPS boats right? they're all JOrg Weitenauer designs
aren't
> they?
Yes, they are the original Weitenauer/Macherel design, hence the WM name.
Playmates, please will you excuse me if I write an in-depth reply on this.
Click off now if you don't want to read it, or just close your eyes and the
full time footy score will appear on your screen.
I'm told that WM (the European one) twice went bust, and on the second
occasion they were bought out by Erplast, of Beauville France, who
re-branded them with the MPS name to put an end to at least one element of
the continuing confusion with the WM brands of Australia, and now
Switzerland, where I believe Weitenauer now builds the WM boats Xeno
currently uses.
MPS have the original WM banana hull with the cut-off triangular transom
stern, very similar in appearance to van Dusen, and maybe somebody can tell
us whether there was a formal link there at some past time. And they have
curved wing riggers. The older aluminium rigger is now being superseded by a
very light carbon rigger, making this the world's sexiest single by a
country mile (OK Sue, let's have a separate thread about what makes a single
sexy - nothing to do with high heels or bondage, OK?)
I had one on display at the Nationals at Penrith, and was asked by several
people why the rigger was the "wrong" shape. I asked what they meant, and
they said it shouldn't be curved, but should be in three straight sections
with angled joins. My reply was to ask why the Sydney Harbour Bridge isn't
in three straight sections with angled joins. No stress concentration points
in a curved shape. Well, Carl will probably tell me I'm wrong on that, but
I'm a graduate engineer and I reckon it's so. And this one is strong enough
not to need a back stay. I can't see the advantage of wing riggers on a
sculling boat if you need a back stay. Apart from anything else, it makes
the boat difficult to get in and out of, and impossible to pick up and
carry.
And as for my little business, MPS are not the only boats I'm dealing in.
I'm hoping to get a container of Hudsons into Australia some time soon, and
I'm also promoting John Waugh of South Africa, and Janousek. The demand for
new equipment is there. As I said earlier, Sykes boats are great, but their
order book is apparently full to overflowing, and my mission from God is to
make it easier for Aussie rowers to get their hands on equipment that is of
top quality and top value for money.
Check out the website (I urgently need to get the damn thing updated!!!!)
and be sure to check out the oars. Braca-sport. George Spiess will tell you
how damn good they are.
All for now. Hope you all had a good Easter, and please wish me luck in the
Perth to Freo next weekend. This seriously old-enough-to-know-better bastard
will be attempting that 16km of choppy water in the MPS 1x with Braca "wing"
blades. If I survive, I'll tell you how it went.
Greetings
Nick Suess
Scull Success Australasia
PO Box 126, Bayswater,
WA 6933
Phone: 08 9271 0466
Fax: 08 9271 0455
Mobile: 0 412 412 118
Website: www.scull.com.au
E-mail: ni...@scull.com.au
Carl Douglas
>> You bring in the MPS boats right? they're all JOrg Weitenauer designs
>aren't
>> they?
>
>Yes, they are the original Weitenauer/Macherel design, hence the WM name.
>
>Playmates, please will you excuse me if I write an in-depth reply on this.
>Click off now if you don't want to read it, or just close your eyes and the
>full time footy score will appear on your screen.
>
>I'm told that WM (the European one) twice went bust, and on the second
>occasion they were bought out by Erplast, of Beauville France, who
>re-branded them with the MPS name to put an end to at least one element of
>the continuing confusion with the WM brands of Australia, and now
>Switzerland, where I believe Weitenauer now builds the WM boats Xeno
>currently uses.
>
>MPS have the original WM banana hull with the cut-off triangular transom
>stern, very similar in appearance to van Dusen, and maybe somebody can tell
>us whether there was a formal link there at some past time.
Not, as far as I know, any formal link between any W&M or WM firm & van
Dusen. In '88 Danny Macherel told me they'd nicked Ted's boat shape
:-(.
Joerg Weitnauer would be the person to ask, but to the extent that I can
enlighten:
Macherel split with Weitnauer some time after '89. Weitnauer held the
show on the road & continues, in the Zurich area I believe.
Macherel went to Oz, where he set up WM Boats & ripped off a few other
items.
Then Macherel decamped to France. There I'm told he sold the mayor of
an aircraft-making town a scheme to redeploy surplus plane makers as
boat builders. I heard of a grandiose projection of likely build
numbers. It went sour, as expected.
All a bit fishy