So did Cambridge have some sort of water removal system on board?
Surely you would think they would have done. And if so did it then
infact help them win?
So....to continue the theme...Was it a great Cambridge performance?
Me thinks post boatrace they would have been talking of their superb
water removal aids. However currently, on tha face of it, they have
beaten Molesey and Leander.......and are keeping quiet, hoping that we
all think they are fast rather than having benefitted from bailers and
I think for most of the second half of the race they had significantly
less water in their boat and had the gadgets to do it. No way would
they risk not having gadgets after last year. LC and MBC were carrying
So the reality is that they had what could be a massive second half
advantage over the other boats..............................and only
won by 4 seconds.
No a time to worry yet Oxford. A couple Gastro infections from the
Tideway and a cold or two and the race will be a corker.....
I think they did yes.
Was it 100% reliable? Not sure.
[ All views expressed are personal unless otherwise stated ]
I saw one crew with a water-removal system; 7 had stopped rowing and was
Henry Law Manchester, England
Yes they had three pumps. Supplied by Rowperfect UK with rechargable
batteries. They are pretty grunty and could empty a large bucket of
water in a foot well in under 20 seconds.
Anyone else want some?
Lets assume LC/MBC were carrying 10 litres each foot well....
80 litres, 80kg....
And Cambridge pumped dry....
Hmmm, four seconds doesn't look too clever now does it.
They effectively rowed 11-12 minutes with a pretty clear and improving
Maybe they would have struggled to make top 5?
role on Saturday
... or maybe they would have won anyway. Having pumps on board is no
more gaining an advantage than having a world champion on board. You do
what you can within the rules to get the best time possible.
This is bonkers. First of all we're told that OUBC/CUBC never compete
properly so we never know how fast they are (qv Wikipedia et al). Then
CUBC enter the head; from the one side we have "daft so soon before
their big race"; from the other "it's jut a pot-hunt".
So they do turn up and do a pretty good job, get the best time in very
difficult conditions now it's "oh well they had pumps not so clever now".
For what it's worth, I'd hold exactly the same opinion were it Oxford
who'd done the same thing. I think it does Oxbridge good to turn up
full-strength to 'other' events - it would be nice to see Goldie and
Isis doing BUSA stuff (and I don't mean development squad boats).
reports i've heard suggest that the CUBC cox was sitting in considerable
amounts of water at the end of the race - hardly "bone dry" i would
suggest - unless of course you were there and know better.
<anto...@aol.com> wrote in message
Hardly "dry". The Telegraph reports that the cox was up to her waist
in water at the end. Maybe the pumps weren't so effective after all.
>> And Cambridge pumped dry....
> Hardly "dry". The Telegraph reports that the cox was up to her waist
> in water at the end. Maybe the pumps weren't so effective after all.
The cox was sitting in water, but the rest of the boat was reasonably dry.
All of that according to Duncan Holland, their coach. Probably quite a
high lip/footboard between the cox's cockpit and the stroke seat section,
or maybe the pumps weren't rigged to drain that area as much, or at all.
In open shells, any water which does escape the pumps is most likely to
end up at the stern. Plus, a little water in the cox's seat can go a very
long way - if it's a closed-off cockpit then splash which gets in does
tend to swish about merrily every stroke, re-drenching one's legs and
bottom 33-36 times a minute, just after each catch. Certainly feels like
you're sitting waist-deep in water, even if it's just a couple of litres.
On the subject of Potts' Boat Race day antics (see other thread) I'm
considering putting the fact that a former winning Blues cox is planning
to moon the press boat and 250,000 spectators, in my preview article (if
the sub-editors let me). I suspect under all his RSR bravado he is a
lily-livered coward and will funk it without some stout encouragement.
RQ. [Telegraph correspondent.]
Oh for goodness sake I didn't really say "moon". I said I would, er...
When I see how lovely you will surely look! That's it.
In your wet-weather gear.
And with your notebook thing. And maybe stopwatch.
Well, Cambridge at least make a bit of an effort - they've been at
Head of the Trent quite a bit in the last few years.....
This is, as previously discussed, the usual post-swamping trim. And the
vital difference from certain Boat Race-related swampings pre 2006 is
that this boat was much more buoyant.
However, none of us could for a moment pretend that running stern-under
optimises performance, minises hull drag or gives everyone the ideal
rigging set-up ;)
As I explained to the ARA over 6 years ago, & have done here on RSR in
the past, when water starts to come seriously aboard it does so not in
the 20-30litres/minute indicated as the capacity of the CUBC pump
arrangement, but by tonnes/minute.
Thus those pumps would have been fine for sucking the boat dry, as we
have heard, in reasonable water before the start, but useless at
countering the kinds of influx experienced at certain points during the
race. When that happened, only the shell's inbuilt buoyancy ensured the
crew would not sink.
Once through the spin-a-rinse sections, the pump would again be of some
use, but only if the boat was not so low in the water that the influx
did not equal of exceed their capacity. That, of course, was the case
in last year's Boat Race: both crews took on a lot of water after
Hammersmith Bridge, but OU had the pumps which, once clear of the worst,
progressively lightened their boat whereas CU had left theirs at home.
From there on a close race became a procession.
All of that according to Duncan Holland, their coach. Probably
> quite a high lip/footboard between the cox's cockpit and the stroke seat
> section, or maybe the pumps weren't rigged to drain that area as much,
> or at all. In open shells, any water which does escape the pumps is most
> likely to end up at the stern. Plus, a little water in the cox's seat
> can go a very long way - if it's a closed-off cockpit then splash which
> gets in does tend to swish about merrily every stroke, re-drenching
> one's legs and bottom 33-36 times a minute, just after each catch.
> Certainly feels like you're sitting waist-deep in water, even if it's
> just a couple of litres.
A brief study of the science of levers & moments tells us that a lump of
water near one end has a disproportionate effect on a boat's trim, as
well as providing cox with more colonic irrigation than they might wish for.
So when are Boatrace crews going to talk with me about more intelligent
ways of getting & keeping water out of the boat?
> On the subject of Potts' Boat Race day antics (see other thread) I'm
> considering putting the fact that a former winning Blues cox is planning
> to moon the press boat and 250,000 spectators, in my preview article (if
> the sub-editors let me). I suspect under all his RSR bravado he is a
> lily-livered coward and will funk it without some stout encouragement.
> RQ. [Telegraph correspondent.]
"Potts Moons for the Blues"? "A Blue Moon for Potts"? "Former Cox
Potts a Blue Moon"? Take your pick - it's Potts Luck.
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1784-456344 Fax: -466550
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)
You forgot my fetching wellies and Xchanging cap.
Unfortunately for you, though I might be getting deaf in my old age, my
email-software isn't thus afflicted.
>>QUOTED FROM EMAIL OF 28th MARCH
>>I have put myself in for the ballot for the Amaryllis launch.
>>If successful I shall harangue the press launch for the full duration
>>of the race with pithy asides and witty observations.
>>(NB If you can't hear me I shall merely moon you all)
Your only dignified way out is audible pithy asides and witty
observations. I suggest you equip yourself with a vast loudhailer so that
I can't pretend I'm not hearing you across the 15-boat flotilla. You can
entertain the whole of the Putney Embankment and Fulham Football Ground at
the same time. Should by a snap for a bloke who regularly manages to keep
swarms of toddlers amused. By the way, I've always meant to ask. Is your
foundation of <a href="http://www.partyark.co.uk/information/about">Party
Ark</A> all a ploy to train yourself up for umpiring the Boat Race one
fine day? I shouldn't have thought you'd find obstreperous coxes much
more difficult than Terrible Twos, particularly having been one (or in
fact both) yourself.
I note to my disgust (because I fear your head will swell so much further
than you won't be able to leave the house and moon me on Boat Race Day)
that you are almost certainly the first RSR-er to have his own Wikipedia
entry. Discovered when googling because I couldn't remember what your
business was called. Fantastic work. Did'ya write it yourself?
Nope. CUBC have been going to Trent Head for years.
A youthful looking 35 I have to say.
> Hannah wrote:
>> I think that will have been culrc or cubc dev sqaud.
> Nope. CUBC have been going to Trent Head for years.
I think there has been some confusion between the Head of the Trent
(attended by CUBC and CUWBC) and the BUSA Head, which is on the Trent a
week later (or is it earlier?), which CULRC went to in 2005 and 2006 (at