Flotation ignorance - Women's Boat Race

[carl]

Just heard ZdeT talking further nonsense - or what should nowadays be
nonsense - in relation to swamping, pumps & sinking.

Asked if the boats might sink of the conditions proved very rough, she
said that could happen. Errr - aren't these shells supposed to be fully
buoyant? If not, then why not?

And in "sinking conditions" a pump will be of no value. Where pumps
help is in removing a non-sinking water burden. In which case, the
modest weight of a pump is not a competitive disadvantage.

But what would I know?

Procession now forming.

Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Find: tinyurl.com/2tqujf
Email: ca...@carldouglasrowing.com Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
URLs: carldouglasrowing.com & now on Facebook @ CarlDouglasRacingShells

[gsl...@gmail.com]

> Just heard ZdeT talking further nonsense - or what should nowadays be

Who is ZdeT? Can you complain to him/her?
Here you are just preaching to the converted (not that I'm complaining about that--after all I find it more polite than the holy rollers who come to my door :) )

[carl]

Time was, quite recently too, when the UK's arrogant but ignorant
"prats-that-be" were telling those whose sport they supposedly governed
that eights could not be made to float when swamped.

Today's WBR proved that those of us who campaigned for 10 years against
such malicious official idiocy did actually know our science &
understood both Archimedes & naval architecture.

It also demonstrated, post facto, the truism that the official tie
exists to restrict the flow of blood to the brain, sometimes with deadly
consequences for the unfortunate rowers whose lives would & should, long
ago, have been protected & preserved had the lunatics not been in charge
of the asylum.

Sorry to introduce such a sour note, but there is a list of rowers who
have died only because shells - which could have been made fully buoyant
& thus safe in stormy conditions without the least competitive
disadvantage - were left vulnerable. And that was only because these
know-nothing officials, repeatedly & callously, insulted & obstructed
those who were working so hard to make the case for full shell buoyancy.

And not one of those fools has had the common decency to apologise or
retract.

Today has made the case for full shell buoyancy beyond all doubt. Even
so, I've just heard a radio reporter say that Oxford won because
Cambridge "sank".

[Daniel Spring]

Interesting that the umpire actually suggested to the Cambridge crew that they pull over and be rescued. Whilst the boat won't "sink" as such, there is surely a point at which the amount of water in the boat makes it "un-rowable". But a great display by Cambridge to keep it moving, get into calmer water and let the pumps do their work.

[Henry Law]

On 27/03/16 15:18, carl wrote:
> Errr - aren't these shells supposed to be fully buoyant? If not, then
> why not?

I have no idea what it's like to be a "pundit" on a live TV show; maybe
the stress makes you say things that afterwards you realise weren't
quite right. She wasn't the only broadcaster who did it.

BTW, assuming there is one pump, and assuming under-seat sealed
compartments, how do those pumps (which seemed to be in the cox's
footwell) get the water from all the way down the boat?

--

Henry Law Manchester, England

[Sarah Harbour]

They have multiple pumps and (I think) ways of connecting a single pump to multiple footwells.

Do the Empachers the men were using have higher freeboards than the Hudsons the women were rowing in? Looked like it from the footage.

[marko....@gmail.com]

Please excuse my ignorance on this topic, but have changes been made to the boats since last year when Oxford sank during training and were rescued? http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/apr/02/oxford-womens-boat-race-sinking-thames

[Sarah Harbour]

On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 5:34:29 PM UTC+1, marko....@gmail.com wrote:
> Please excuse my ignorance on this topic, but have changes been made to the boats since last year when Oxford sank during training and were rescued? http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/apr/02/oxford-womens-boat-race-sinking-thames

They probably didn't have the pumps on board for that incident. They didn't actually 'sink' they 'swamped'.

Sarah

[marko....@gmail.com]

I guess the definition of sinking varies. I imagine it is pretty hard for a eight to actually go totally under and hit the bottom but needing rescue is severe enough to fit this definition I think.

[Sarah Harbour]

Ask Carl - he gets quite upset about this stuff (and rightly so). The swamped boat can still be rowable - that's the point of the underseat bouyancy and why CUWBC were able to carry on today, even if they weren't able to keep racing with that much water in their seat compartments. They were able to get themselves to calmer water to stop more water coming into the boat and allow the pumps to do their job.

Sarah

[carl]

On 27/03/2016 16:02, carl wrote:
> On 27/03/2016 15:38, gsl...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Today has made the case for full shell buoyancy beyond all doubt. Even
> so, I've just heard a radio reporter say that Oxford won because
> Cambridge "sank".
>

May I use this self-referential intro as the jumping off point to answer
some of the points raised (& those likely to be raised) - although Sarah
has done a grand job already?

1. What constitutes sinking for a rowing shell?
One dictionary definition of "sink" is "to go lower". Another is "to go
to the bottom". In rowing, sinking now means the boat being unable to
support its seated crew with torsos above the water _&/or_ the crew are
no longer able to row.
In this race we saw the Cambridge boat fully awash at Barnes Bridge,
with the water inside the boat level with that outside, yet they
continued to row (very competently) & progressed thus into more
sheltered water.
So Cambridge did not sink. Their boat supported them. They were able to
continue rowing.

It was for this very same standard of flotation that a modest number of
us fought for some 10 years while most looked on & UK rowing's sainted
blazerati lied, libelled & obstructed.

2. Why didn't the boat go down once fully swamped?
Archimedes told us that the up-thrust on a floating object is equal to
the mass of water which it displaces. This is the water displaced by the
sum of the enclosed volume of the boat (including its hull thickness,
its bow & stern compartments, its fittings, its under-seat enclosed
volumes &, do not forget, its contents). In this case the contents are
its crew, the legs & butts of whom contribute crucially to that
displacement (that reference is not pejorative, ladies!). Provided the
sum of these displacements at a given immersion depth matches the dry
weight of the individual contributions, then the crewed boat will float.

Before fully-buoyant shells were mandated, it was still possible (under
the right conditions & given sufficient presence of mind) to survive a
swamping. But then the equilibrium between weight & displacement was not
reached until the water level was chest high. In that situation you
can't row or reach safety, & you're totally immersed in cold water.
Further, as the boat's own displacement is concentrated at its ends
while the main mass is closer to the middle, it could & sometimes did
break in two. The wish to save costly hardware encouraged crews to swim,
which could be even more dangerous in cold waters, & it is indeed tricky
to balance a boat that is so far submerged.

3. Pumps?
The pumps didn't keep that boat afloat. No pump which the boat can carry
could compete with a typical influx of some tonnes/minute. The boat has
first to have the necessary buoyancy to remain rowable; then, as it
reaches calmer waters & the influx falls to manageable levels, the pumps
can redress the balance.

We saw this clearly when Cambridge wisely ignored siren voices proposing
"rescue" (a potentially dangerous operation). On reaching calmer waters
their boat rose steadily as the pumps did their job.

4. Causes of the swamping, & comparison with the men's race?
No, it wasn't due to spray, which is a minor source of water although
spectacular. What always happens is that a wave slightly higher than
others runs along the side of the boat & spills inwards. That added
water makes the boat sit lower, so the next wave (likely to be higher
anyway) tips a whole lot more into the boat - because it is both
relatively higher WRT the boat (even if not higher from peak to trough)
& a greater length of this wave now stands above the saxboards. The
combined effects of this mechanism ensure that, if the wave field
remains unchanged, the boat fills exponentially with time.

I think there's marked difference in freeboard between these 2 makes of
boats, but I'm open to correction. Freeboard is very important to the
sea-keeping ability of any vessel, for reasons I've already explained
above. A wave crest which would run just below the top of the sax on
Hull A might run 1cm above the sax of Hull B, so B will take on some
water while A stays dry. This happens a few times & B has become
correspondingly heavier by taking on say 100kg. Already the crew finds
the boat more sluggish because the water now sloshing back & forth
disrupts the boat's dynamics & friction between the sloshing water & the
inside of the hull soaks up energy. But also the boat is now sitting a
little lower; maybe it now has 2cm less water clearance than the boat
with more initial freeboard. The next wave to run along the boat may
still not enter Hull A, but its rate of influx into Hull B will be very
much greater than before due to the height of that wave above the lower
saxboard & the lengths of those wave-peaks which stand above the
saxboard. The boat's on a 1-way trip to total swamping.

Before wing riggers, hulls were always deeper, typically by 5cm/2". Why?
Because if they were any higher the crew might crack their knuckles on
them too often. And if they went any lower the boats would be wet to
row. Traditional boat-builders were real watermen, understood boats
(because they came from a line of watermen who earned their living on
the water) & they were always ready to learn from the reports of their
clients.

The fundamentals of sea-keeping, so important in racing on exposed
waters (e.g. the tidal Thames, or any other wide river, or the many
rather exposed 2k multi-lane courses), went out of the window when wing
rigging became the fashion. Indeed, wing riggers became fashionable for
one fundamentally wrong reason - the belief that boats were swamped by
spray. And that was consolidated in key minds, in particular in those of
the US squad prior to the Athens Olympics, who saw the fiasco which was
the World Junior regatta in Athens the year before & leapt to the wrong
conclusion: that all those shells were swamped by rigger spray. So they
chose to race in boats with cut-down saxboards! Doh!

I hope that fills in a few gaps?

Cheers -

[carl]

On 27/03/2016 17:08, Henry Law wrote:
> On 27/03/16 15:18, carl wrote:
>> Errr - aren't these shells supposed to be fully buoyant? If not, then
>> why not?
>
> I have no idea what it's like to be a "pundit" on a live TV show; maybe
> the stress makes you say things that afterwards you realise weren't
> quite right. She wasn't the only broadcaster who did it.

They almost all talk garbage, or any other insubstantial twaddle which
enters their heads. Some talk more junk than others, partly because
they are unable think & talk dispassionately, partly because they want
to sound very expert, partly to avoid allowing viewers to use their
brains. A notable & creditable exception is Matt Pinsent.

My wife's a bit deaf, so she switches on the subtitles. It must be hard
to generate these in nearly real time, but while watching she noted some
of the best infelicitudes. I don't have them to hand, but she was
rather charmed by an Oxford rower apparently named Muddy Blood Clot. I
may be able to bring some more to a wider audience tomorrow, unless
anyone gets there before me

>
> BTW, assuming there is one pump, and assuming under-seat sealed
> compartments, how do those pumps (which seemed to be in the cox's
> footwell) get the water from all the way down the boat?
>

Even of there isn't a manifold intake system, or a connecting tubes
under the slide-beds, water will slosh across the slide-beds until there
are only a few centimetres of water in the footwells.

Cheers -

[Daniel Spring]

Live race commentary is a very difficult art to do well. Sometimes you can think you've done well and only afterwards you think "did I really say that!" Also some people hear things very differently to the way it was intended. Commentating for Regatta Radio at HRR I was nearly punched by the coach of a crew because I'd said their bladework was getting scrappy!
The best make it look very easy (for rowing look no further than Robert Treharne Jones or Martin Cross). Being an expert in the field is no guarantee of being good at talking about it live!

[Henning Lippke]

> Live race commentary is a very difficult art to do well.

I would support this for radio commentary, having done it myself on a
different matter.

But not on TV. Why? Because TV commentators should let the pictures
speak for themselves more often. Instead there's a constant stream of
words. No suprise the content suffers. There's plenty of time to think
about relevant words to add to the picture. And even more if you have 3
persons sharing the job.

[madmar...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, 27 March 2016 17:20:11 UTC+1, Sarah Harbour wrote:

>
> They have multiple pumps and (I think) ways of connecting a single pump to multiple footwells.
>
> Do the Empachers the men were using have higher freeboards than the Hudsons the women were rowing in? Looked like it from the footage.

The men's boats will be bigger, but given that the crews are heavier you'd need to sit the crews in the boats and get a tape measure out. Given the difference in rig height between men and women I would guess that the men had at least 2-3cm more freeboard.

You can see the pumps in action in this footage at about 1:20 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4UN2nZTquc

Both men's boats seemed to have something attached to the sax board edge to make the boat wider and presumably resist a bit of the water rolling in - seemed to be about 10cm. I can't see if either of the women's boats had this.

Ignoring how people use the terminology, it is both impressive that the crew continued to row and that the buoyancy in the boat allowed them to do it. This is why it is there and it is clear that it works. Once out of the rough conditions and no longer taking on additional water, the pumps seemed to be working quite well to clear the boat.

[Chris A]

It seems bizarre that crews will go to endless lengths to get the most marginal advantage from a certain piece of kit, hull shape, rigger design etc yet ignore the one thing which you're likely to encounter on a wide tidal river in a British spring.

WRT pumps I saw this on Facebook

"The Hudson had full underseat buoyancy and crossflow between footwells and 4 pumps with 1" pipes, the issue was that CUWBC had 10cm extension washboards on the saxboards which scooped more water in, OUWBC did not ...

The pumps are wired as OFF or Automatic see attached photo of the switch."

[Sarah Harbour]

Would sideways extension washboards really scoop more water in? I find that hard to believe.

[madmar...@gmail.com]

On Monday, 28 March 2016 08:33:06 UTC+1, Sarah Harbour wrote:
> Would sideways extension washboards really scoop more water in? I find that hard to believe.

Possibly.

One intention is to stop water coming up from underneath, but what if a wave is already above this height?

Imagine a boat with a thin edge...The water falling on that edge will be split neatly. Going in or not going in.

Now imagine a 10cm wide strip... Now you have a wider area (and greater volume of water), so when the water hits that you are possibly getting that extra '10cm worth' as well. It is basically funnelling in more.

I remember when the old trick was to put a few widths of tape along the riggers (or use some plastic sheet), but this was on the older style riggers and not the wings. The key difference was that any water that fell on the wide area of the improvised splash guard would have a chance to run down between the guard and the side of the hull - assuming that the angle and location of the conventional rigger on the outside of the sax boards is there to stop our guard lining up with the very top as per the wing rig.

I have an idea for a better tape-on splash guard strip forming in my head. Will need to sketch this...

[usbrit]

>
> Live race commentary is a very difficult art to do well. Sometimes you can think you've done well and only afterwards you think "did I really say that!" Also some people hear things very differently to the way it was intended. Commentating for Regatta Radio at HRR I was nearly punched by the coach of a crew because I'd said their bladework was getting scrappy!
> The best make it look very easy (for rowing look no further than Robert Treharne Jones or Martin Cross). Being an expert in the field is no guarantee of being good at talking about it live!

Slightly hijacking this thread, I understand live commentary can be tough but ZDT's words to me seemed continuously biased to her alma mater. It was like listening to a female Eddie Butler!

[carl]

On 27/03/2016 23:57, Chris A wrote:
> It seems bizarre that crews will go to endless lengths to get the most marginal advantage from a certain piece of kit, hull shape, rigger design etc yet ignore the one thing which you're likely to encounter on a wide tidal river in a British spring.
>

I couldn't agree more, Chris.

Rowing remains deliberately naive on the design features which (other
than paint colour ;) ) would make boats faster. We start with eights
which are ideally suited to relatively sheltered waters, & which in
times past would not go out if conditions were known to be foul, & opt
to race them on wide open waters at TV-scheduled times regardless of
changing conditions. To cap it all, we opt (for irrational reasons
based purely on fashion & whim) to substantially reduce their freeboard.
Now what could possibly go wrong?

Here the recent application of utterly basic hydrostatic principles (for
so long adamantly opposed by a know-nothing establishment) really did
save a fiasco from becoming a pathetic, possibly dangerous, public
fatuity. Maybe CUWBC were never going to win, but using equipment with
inadequate freeboard for the likely conditions ensured their defeat
where another inch or so of freeboard on their boat might have turned
the tables.

There's considerable investment of time & money in this event, & these
are supposedly two of the UK's leading universities, yet they leave
their science/engineering brains at home when preparing to race. What
should be a great opportunity for enhancing the quality & performance of
rowing equipment is unable to lift itself above mute acceptance that the
big manufacturers know best. Everything is then focussed on training,
devoid of any systematic equipment analysis. So much more could be
achieved by a more intelligent approach.

> WRT pumps I saw this on Facebook
>
> "The Hudson had full underseat buoyancy and crossflow between footwells and 4 pumps with 1" pipes, the issue was that CUWBC had 10cm extension washboards on the saxboards which scooped more water in, OUWBC did not ...
>
> The pumps are wired as OFF or Automatic see attached photo of the switch."
>

At least one further lesson has now been learned - that pumps make sense
in this event. But one still recalls when, despite seeing potentially
sinking conditions in the reserves' race, like rabbits in headlamps, one
crew still left its pumps in the boathouse. The predictable consequence
was that considerable amounts of water came aboard at Hammersmith &
remained a race-losing passenger for the rest of the race.

And still commentators witter on about possible "adverse consequences
from the weight of pumps". IIRC, it is very normal to take on quite a
few kilograms of water. Sloshing water is a far greater real impediment
than the purely illusory disadvantage of carrying a lesser mass of pumps
+ batteries.

I'm sorry for the CUWBC crew, but grateful for this powerful
demonstration of the value of full shell buoyancy. I remain saddened
that it took our sport far more than a century, & cost the lives of so
many rowers (one of whom was a friend of mine), to at last learn that
message. Those who either opposed it, or did nothing for fear of
official disfavour, should hang their heads in shame.

[caspar...@gmail.com]

Yes, they may be the leading universities, but no they don't leave their science/engineering brains at home when preparing to race.
The rowers/coxes, the students at said universities, have no choice over the equipment - they use the equipment they are provided with. The coaches have limited control over the equipment - they have some influence over what new boats are bought, but a lot comes down to the executive committees of the clubs and the sponsors/boat suppliers, who are the ones who actually pay for or supply the boats. Hudson supplied the women's boats. They knew they'd be racing on the tideway and that conditions could be rough. But they chose to give their 'latest and greatest' boat with carbon wing riggers etc.

[Jonny]

Something that a few of you may or may not be aware of is that one of the manufacturers offers boats to the open weight blues squads at negligible cost. In that respect the rowers do not chose the equipment they use. The coaching set up, and the respective committees behind it, chose the equipment, and for one of the squads, choose the nearly-free equipment. (Quite understandably).

Carl, as always, is correct. There is still no scientific testing of the eights in Tideway conditions. There is, however, some empirical testing by the Tideway based clubs. This is wholly unscientific as I do not believe any of the high performance Tideway clubs can put together a quality colour blind eight. But I do believe there is a reason why none of the top end Tideway clubs own an eight from one of the manufacturers represented this weekend.

[carl]

On 28/03/2016 22:27, caspar...@gmail.com wrote:
> Yes, they may be the leading universities, but no they don't leave their science/engineering brains at home when preparing to race.
> The rowers/coxes, the students at said universities, have no choice over the equipment - they use the equipment they are provided with. The coaches have limited control over the equipment - they have some influence over what new boats are bought, but a lot comes down to the executive committees of the clubs and the sponsors/boat suppliers, who are the ones who actually pay for or supply the boats. Hudson supplied the women's boats. They knew they'd be racing on the tideway and that conditions could be rough. But they chose to give their 'latest and greatest' boat with carbon wing riggers etc.
>

When I was a lad - as these tales so often begin - we raced the best
boats we had at top level. Only at novice level might we race in what
we then termed "committee boats" - supplied by the regatta organisers.
But that was to save the inconvenience of lugging too many boats across
country when motorways were few & far between. You are telling us, & do
I believe you as I know it to be true, that the Boat Race is now rowed
in committee boats. And thereby, I'm afraid, you've just contradicted
your initial statement.

As you say, equipment decisions are largely made elsewhere. Sponsors
have taken over from real choice, slamming the door shut on intelligent
adaptation by intelligent people. Don't you find that strange, given
the huge personal & financial costs of this event within which the cost
of the boats themselves is relatively so small?

Rowing shells are durable. They can (& have in the recent past) raced
several seasons. So why doesn't each university provide their own, &
use, protect & upgrade it over a number of years? And please don't
anyone start saying they "go soft", 'cos it ain't true.

If these clubs did that, they could once more apply science & innovation
to the business of race winning, as once they (& we) used to do. But
isn't it so typically British to switch off whole segments of our
thinking parts &, for some pieces of silver, hand over a fine &
peculiarly British event to be a shop window for external suppliers,
however good their products may be?

Still, Britain is the land which let others kill off its indigenous
motor industries, is now building carriers for which there may be no
aircraft (or none we can afford) & gives over the crucial matter of its
national power supply to a havering French company & Chinese financiers
while our steel industries go to the wall. Always its the short-sighted
economics of the grocers shop (& see how the big supermarkets have
shafted whole sectors of their indigenous supply chains).

Yes, it's up to these universities how they arrange these matters. But
was it also the wish of CUWBC to race & lose in that way? Rowers are
generally bright people so its sad to see this denial, for commercial
reasons, of the power of independent thought. And, unlike you, I can
clearly recall the year this began.

Cheers -

[Jonny]

A somewhat unfair question to Carl. Seeing as you don't manufacture large boats, you shouldn't have too much of a bias. If you had a high performance squad, such as OUWBC/CUWBC/OUBC/CUBC, and were racing on the tideway. And had no budgetary constraints. What would you purchase?

[carl]

Oddly enough, I try to stay non-partisan. And, just this once, I will
answer your question entirely dispassionately:

If running a squad I'd speed-test as many damned shells as I could lay
hands on, first over still-water measured distances. Then I'd race them
in tideway-rough conditions. And I keep this up from season to season
to stay current with any developments manufacturers might introduce.

I'd also test the ancillary equipment that's on the market, it being
improbable than any one shell manufacturer has got everything dead right
except their PR ;) And I'd refuse to be swayed by manufacturers' claims
of excellence but would objectively measure their influences on boat
speed (in head, cross & tailwind conditions), sea-keeping, crew
satisfaction and coxing/handling characteristics.

I'd also engage members of the university engineering departments to
evaluate every aspect of the kit on offer - which could provide them
with a number of demanding & fruitful post-grad research projects each year.

To me it's strange to have this fierce physical contest between brainy
people & hold it under a self-denying ordinance that bars them from
using their universities' academic & practical non-rowing skills to
competitive advantage.

What do others think?

[Sarah Harbour]

In the past, you could have input on equipment choice as a club student official, but it was dependant on the interest/knowledge of the individual and circumstances - certainly equipment wasn't bought every year. I was lucky to be Lwt Captain when the Filippi (that the CUWBC Lightweights used for the 2006-2014 races inclusive) was ordered. I ensured that the box for optional underwear buoyancy compartments was ticked on the order form (the head coach wasn't on email so it was me who submitted the order). Having also rowed for my college in a boat with AeRoWing riggers and a Filippi that had standard 3-stay riggers, I knew which I preferred and convinced the coach we wanted those on it too. At the time I think it was the only VIII the club had which had underseat buoyancy compartments. Certainly the Empacher the Blue Boat were using didn't.

The Cambridge men used a Hudson in 2013, but changed back to Empacher in 2014 because they preferred it. I don't know if they had a deal with Hudson or not.

Sarah

[Sarah Harbour]

Underseat, not underwear. Autocorrect changed it and I changed it back... Only for it to change it again when I hit post!! Grrrr

[rowdoc]

Sarah Harbour <saraha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Underseat, not underwear. Autocorrect changed it and I changed it back...
> Only for it to change it again when I hit post!! Grrrr
>

Underwear buoyancy likely to be a variable Carl would also consider..

[carl]

On 29/03/2016 00:23, Sarah Harbour wrote:
> Underseat, not underwear. Autocorrect changed it and I changed it back... Only for it to change it again when I hit post!! Grrrr
>

It's enough to get anyone's knickers in a twist! The machines now own
us, Ehue!

Talking of which, some of the other subtitling mishaps which Jan caught
while watching the racing included:
Devlish nurse
Daniel Sopalsky
Clearer bandage
Need to turkey

Translations on a postcard, please?

[Jonny]

For the open-weights I'm aware that one of the four clubs involved did speed test shells on still water (in recent years). Unfortunately I was never closely affiliated with them so I do not know their process or methodology. However they did change manufacturer. One of the four has not felt any reason to change since they gave up using Sims. And the other two have only seen their funding rise to significant levels recently and so need to devise their own purchasing strategies. To an extent before that they had to take whatever they could get.

For the lightweight women one races Filippis and the other Resolutes. One boat is the correct weighting for the crew, the other isn't. Both the lightweight men race Filippis. The lightweights do suffer from significant financial constraints and so do not have the freedom in purchasing decisions the open-weights do.

Several Putney Embankment clubs have speed tested shells on the Tideway, but certainly not on a regular basis. I think its fair to say that even if they were dedicated enough they do not have the capability to test vigourously.

Also I believe you may flatter Oxbridge somewhat, neither has much interest in fluids beneath 500K and transonic speeds. Somewhere like Southampton may be a better fit for such research.

In a perfect world I do agree with you Carl. That would be what I would love to do if I had such a squad. Realistically I suspect the best you would get would be "seat racing" the boats, opening up issues such as psychology, bias and such like.

[Sarah Harbour]

CUWBC lightweights have had a Hudson too for past 2 races. They used pumps for their race this year judging by the race footage.

[carl]

On 29/03/2016 01:01, Sarah Harbour wrote:
> CUWBC lightweights have had a Hudson too for past 2 races. They used pumps for their race this year judging by the race footage.
>

And OU Lightweights used Resolutes. I was at Henley the evening before,
repairing the bolted attachment of their LWt Women's AeRowFin steering
foil (they'd pushed it down into Tideway shingle a short while before).

Interesting that there's more equipment diversity & choice exercised
within the less favoured LWt sector.

Cheers -

[Jonny]

On Tuesday, 29 March 2016 01:01:52 UTC+1, Sarah Harbour wrote:
> CUWBC lightweights have had a Hudson too for past 2 races. They used pumps for their race this year judging by the race footage.

I need to get down to Henley more. Shame this year was quite so miserable for HBR.

Getting vaguely back on topic:
On the upside with fully buoyant boats I am finally convinced that pumps have a purpose. Historically pumps were fitted to boats without sealed footwells which would sink, with the pumps overwhelmed. The upside is we have seen that pumps can make a boat rowable again, relatively quickly, once in shelter.

[Alistair Browne]

...ZDT's words to me seemed continuously biased to her alma mater. It was like listening to a female Eddie Butler!

Ouch! Wasn't interested enough to watch, but if it was THAT bad, well...

[carl]

On 29/03/2016 12:48, Alistair Browne wrote:
> ...ZDT's words to me seemed continuously biased to her alma mater. It was like listening to a female Eddie Butler!
>
> Ouch! Wasn't interested enough to watch, but if it was THAT bad, well...
>

Perhaps I'm fortunate, but I have no recollection of hearing commentary
from Mr. Butler (Welsh rugby?).

However, rowing has been less than blessed by the quality of commentary
from many of its supposed experts. Could it be that, despite lengthy
immersion in the sport, while they think themselves experts the
unfortunate truth is that they really don't understand how it works?

For a really interesting (historic) commentary involving boats if not
rowing, I recommend this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WpiTa7azQs
Woodroffe was, allegedly, not tight so half as some thinkle might peep -
a good man, undone by the power of British Naval hospitality.

[Chris A]

Interesting piece from the Cambridge cox. It seems the combination of self baling and pumps worked for Cambridge.

http://m.cambridge-news.co.uk/right-hand-Rosemary-Ostfeld-symbolised-Cambridge/story-29021736-detail/story.html#ixzz44Tmwi4lp

[James HS]

Even the cox sais 'sink' lord help us ... They were submerged already (swamped).
Might be misreporting.
But I did admire them taking advantage of their buoyant boat to carry on!

James

[carl]

You may note that the cox claims that it was only the fact that they
kept rowing which prevented their sinking.

I'm saddened when a member of a noted academic institution so little
understands the basics of the equipment they use that they resort to
palpable fictions & magic ju-ju in the effort to account for something
which Archimedes explained so clearly over 2000 years ago.

Keep it simple, ladies!

[michael....@gmail.com]

I believe the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect applies here.