What does a bowball help?
Eberhard Nabel
in an earlier thread I cited this picture
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y90/Aceel/collision2.gif
which I found on the homepage of the French rowing association. Until
recently it seemed to me unbelievable, that such an accident could
happen again.
But now I found a short report on a similar, maybe even more severe
accident on the homepage of the biggest Berlin rowing club
http://www.berliner-ruder-club.de/mitglieder/2005-email-vogels.html
It reads in a hopefully not too bad translation as follows:
2005-08-18:
[... ] To the topic of health damage the following anecdote gets in my
mind: For 4 years I am rowing now on the Charles in Boston, and is
there boat traffic at autumn time with 2600 rowers daily (!) .... Thus
more frequently accidents happen.
One severe accident was mor than two years ago: An eight of an
university rammed a single here so thoroughly, that after the collision
the sculler found himself speared by the eight. The bow ball of the
eight had broken off with the initial contact, and so the bow had bored
itself a bit above the right hip bone into the back of the sculler and
came out at height of the appendix scar on the other side.
Fortunately a boathouse and a motorboat were close by and the (elder)
gentleman could be saved (one held his intestines properly in the
hands). As by a miracle no internal organs got hurt, and the injured
muscle portions could be repaired. After well 10 months he sat again in
his boat, however only with rear view mirror......
end of quotation
Eberhard
Mike Sullivan
"Eberhard Nabel" <ebn...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1134667651.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Dear all,
> in an earlier thread I cited this picture
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y90/Aceel/collision2.gif
> which I found on the homepage of the French rowing association. Until
> recently it seemed to me unbelievable, that such an accident could
> happen again.
ugh... there went my breakfast...
KC
in the discussions.
What I wonder is, with virtually all modern boats made of composites,
couldn't the bow be any shape at all? Why must the bow be pin-point
sharp, with a stupid rubber ball fastened loosely to it? Why not design
the composite bow to be round/blunt?
-Kieran
Nick Suess
"Eberhard Nabel" <ebn...@aol.com> wrote in message
> ......The bow ball of the
> eight had broken off with the initial contact,
Of course, the idea is to design the bowball so it WON'T break off with the
initial contact. This might seem logical to anyone considering the bowball
as a safety device for the event of an impact, but take a walk round any
boatshed or at any regatta and you'll see bowballs that can be pushed aside
by 90 degrees with light finger pressure, let alone heavy impact. You see
bowballs standing almost vertically above the sharp point of the bow rather
than directly in line with it, and it does appear that less thought goes
into the integrity of this potentially life saving item than does into the
colour coordination of the rowers' zooties..
ALASDHAIR JOHNSTON
single whose bow ball had "fallen off" at some undetermined time beforehand.
Fortunately, the impact was somewhere reasonably fleshy, and I was able to
make pythonesque jokes about "having two where most have to make do with
only one" not too long afterward.
Having said that, I'm not convinced that bowballs are more than a band-aid
to the fundamental problem that boats are essentially oversized spears: do
they actually have to be that sharp above the waterline? Some designs of
bowball appear to have a size close to that of the average human eyesocket:
it can only be a matter of time before some swimmer loses an eye. The main
thing is to keep a good lookout, particularly in the direction of travel...
"Mike Sullivan" <s...@SNIPslac.stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:dns9o6$s65$1...@news.Stanford.EDU...
Phil
donal...@gmail.com
bow off say 6 inches from the end with a totally squared off end with a
fixing post. Then have bow shaped section of neoprene of six inches to
include integral empacher slot.
Donal
Phil
upset things - try some thin insulating tape stretched around your
hull!).
Phil.
Charles Carroll
> university rammed a single here so thoroughly, that after the collision
> the sculler found himself speared by the eight. The bow ball of the
My recollection is that the rower survived, made a remarkable recover, and
over the protests of his wife raced Head of the Charles the following year.
Carl Douglas
I recall the horrendous reports of that accident. It is far from a
one-off event - there have been many similar disembowellings & woundings
wherever there are many rowers on limited water (Silken Lauman's leg
injury at Essen international regatta being just one case).
Bows are pointy because a) that's the right way to end a set of
continuous & fair hull lines & b) the bow must pierce waves which are
near or above deck level (see photos from Wednesday's CUBC trial race in
London, UK). With a blunted bow, you'll be at a disadvantage every time
you head into a wave.
Bow balls are supposed to protect. The idea is that the ball absolutely
prevents the pointed bow from penetrating either ball or you. In
practice the ball is a fairly useless & totemic blob of soft,
semi-perished elastomer, loosely attached to a structurally unsound &
sharply pointed bow.
The function of the bow ball is undermined by:
1. Its statutory use as a photo-finish marker (see FISA regs & those of
your own rowing NGB).
2. The lack of any performance standard to regulate how a bow ball must
perform in a collision. No standard = no performance.
3. FISA's rule which says it should be a 4cm diameter ball of soft
rubber or similar material. It could be bigger, but it won't be. It
would be better were it not a ball, but that's how most are. And soft
rubber both deflects in any glancing blow & is too easily distorted or
perforated in a direct impact.
4. The lack of any rules on permitted & forbidden means of attachment,
& many of the ways bow balls are attached (bolts, screws or tape) seem
designed only to increase the scale of injury & consequent wound
contamination, while making it more likely that the ball will shear off
or deflect on impact.
5. The general lack of care or concern within the sport. We have
relatively few injurious accidents, but those which do kill or maim
bring no action because we & our governing bodies cluelessly accept
each preventable or needlessly harmful incident as "Just a one-off".
One should never confuse a safety function with any other duty. Either
you design a product to serve a specific safety function, & do that to
the exclusion of all other considerations except the final functionality
of the racing boat, or you have a dysfunctional compromise & things will
assuredly go wrong.
At present (& I specifically exclude the product which we fit to our own
boats), the vast majority of bow balls are in no meaningful sense
"designed" for the safety function. That function has never been
defined & the product is never rationally tested for functionality.
Whenever the usual type of bowball is tested that happens in real life &
on the water. The we see, most graphically as in the case to which
Eberhard refers, that it does not protect.
Here are some suggested rules:
1. The protected bow of the boat should be strong enough to be able to
withstand without damage a blow both end-on & from the forward quarter
of a defined energy content, proportionate to the typical mass & speed
of the crewed boat.
2. The "ball" should be shaped, made & fitted so that, under such
impacts against a flat plate, the surface load at any point of contact
with the plate nowhere exceeds a stated level
3. These rules & test levels to be consistent with the assemblage not
penetrating a representative crash-test dummy in a similar impact
Cheers -
Carl
--
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)
Richard Packer
<ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote:
>The function of the bow ball is undermined by:
>1. Its statutory use as a photo-finish marker (see FISA regs & those of
>your own rowing NGB).
Some may well consider it to be a minor semantic change, but the ARA
Rules of Racing 2-3-8 no longer emphasise the importance of a bow ball
being white, and that particular part of the regulation is now merely
advisory (see below). Not entirely sure why you felt it necessary to
focus on the *colour* of the bow-ball as item 1 in your otherwise
excellent list. Even if FISA rules specify a *maximum* diameter of 4
cm (to be honest I haven't checked the FISA rule book); ARA rules
specify *not less than* 4 cm, so in one small area at least ARA rules
appear to be ever so slightly ahead of FISA requirements.
ARA Rules of Racing 2-3-8b
The bows of racing boats shall be properly protected. A solid ball, of
not less than 4 cm diameter, made of rubber or material of similar
resilience, must be firmly attached to the bows. Where the
construction of the boat, or its composition, is such that the bow is
properly protected or its shape does not present a hazard in the event
of a collision, this requirement need not apply.
[In italics] It is recommended that the ball be white as, in most
circumstances, this is the most satisfactory colour with regard to
judging the finish of a race.
Carl Douglas
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 20:45:28 +0000, Carl Douglas
> <ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>The function of the bow ball is undermined by:
>>1. Its statutory use as a photo-finish marker (see FISA regs & those of
>>your own rowing NGB).
>
>
> Some may well consider it to be a minor semantic change, but the ARA
> Rules of Racing 2-3-8 no longer emphasise the importance of a bow ball
> being white, and that particular part of the regulation is now merely
> advisory (see below). Not entirely sure why you felt it necessary to
> focus on the *colour* of the bow-ball as item 1 in your otherwise
> excellent list.
I didn't, AFAICS.
Even if FISA rules specify a *maximum* diameter of 4
> cm (to be honest I haven't checked the FISA rule book); ARA rules
> specify *not less than* 4 cm, so in one small area at least ARA rules
> appear to be ever so slightly ahead of FISA requirements.
FISA, like the ARA, requires a minimum & stipulates no maximum. Which
is exactly why I made my point that:
>> It could be bigger, but it won't be.
It won't be because you don't get boatbuilders adding what rowers
consider to be "unnecessary" weights of rubber to boats.
>
> ARA Rules of Racing 2-3-8b
> The bows of racing boats shall be properly protected. A solid ball, of
> not less than 4 cm diameter, made of rubber or material of similar
> resilience, must be firmly attached to the bows. Where the
> construction of the boat, or its composition, is such that the bow is
> properly protected or its shape does not present a hazard in the event
> of a collision, this requirement need not apply.
> [In italics] It is recommended that the ball be white as, in most
> circumstances, this is the most satisfactory colour with regard to
> judging the finish of a race.
There is absolutely no merit in the ball being resilient. This is just
one example of a non-performance standard - just not thought through at
all. You aren't going to bounce off the ball, & it sure as hell ain't
going to bounce off you but, if it is resilient, it _will_ be bendy &
deformable &, under impact, the point may poke through or concentrate
its load.
HTH
Joseph Meehan
..
>
> What I wonder is, with virtually all modern boats made of composites,
> couldn't the bow be any shape at all? Why must the bow be pin-point
> sharp, with a stupid rubber ball fastened loosely to it? Why not
> design the composite bow to be round/blunt?
>
> -Kieran
I would think that it would interfere with the strength of the hull.
But I am no engineer.
--
Joseph Meehan
Dia duit
Jonny
rather a ball with the angular fitting on it. Many boat builders use
this and it seems to put the ball clear of the boat - this gives the
'floppy bow balls' that people have refered to above.
I have always liked the bow ball that the local builders Sykes and
Prime use - a solid ball with a deep cavity that fits directly on the
front of the boat. You can hit this design from side on and you are not
deflecting the bow ball at all because the boat is underneath the point
you are pressing on. This gives a much more reliable amount of
protection (in as far as any 4-5cm ball can - refer to Carl's comments
on lack of standards) than the other style of bow ball.
If you don't know what I mean, look at my website
(www.rowingboatlights.com) and look at the Mounting and Use link -
picture is of a Sykes pair.
mpruscoe
> I have always hated the type of bow ball that is not just a ball, but
> rather a ball with the angular fitting on it. Many boat builders use
> this and it seems to put the ball clear of the boat - this gives the
> 'floppy bow balls' that people have refered to above.
>
> I have always liked the bow ball that the local builders Sykes and
> Prime use - a solid ball with a deep cavity that fits directly on the
> front of the boat. You can hit this design from side on and you are not
> deflecting the bow ball at all because the boat is underneath the point
> you are pressing on. This gives a much more reliable amount of
> protection (in as far as any 4-5cm ball can - refer to Carl's comments
> on lack of standards) than the other style of bow ball.
Even the type of bowball with the skirt should, if fitted properly, put
the bow of the boat inside the hole in the ball, but the most commonly
encountered bowball design doesn't fit fully onto most boats without
having bits chopped off the skirt because the bows are too blunt for the
opening on the bowball.
bill
See my old post:
reposted here:
> > "Henry Braun" <b...@maths.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.LNX.4.58.03...@tom-slick.maths.ox.ac.uk...
> > > On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Carl Douglas wrote:
> [...]
> > BPLATT: What you will find, if you bother to go through this excersize,
is that no
> > current design for an 8 or a 4, and probably not for 2x or 1 either,
would
> > be acceptable from a crash safety standpoint. The bow is a rapier. To
> > avoid puncture, you must have a blunt object---which would require a
flat or
> > hemispherical bulkhead roughly 50 to 100 cm aft of the stemhead (for an
> > eight, say). The boat from there to the stemhead would have to be a
"foam"
> > or other highly conformable material. Even with these adjustments, you
> > still have no way to ensure that the person rammed is not seriously
injured
> > from a broken back or other shock-induced injury.
> FELIPE: Good thing, then, that these sorts of accidents are (and I'll say
it)
> extremely rare, nigh freakish, especially given the number of crews
> and the number of hours crews practice in the US. Getting whacked by
> an oar seems much more common -- and not surprisingly so. Given that
> riggers and oars do a lot to protect boats from the side, the area in
> which the bow of one boat can hit another is pretty small.
<SNIP>
>FELIPE: Now, exhale. I know head-on collisions between shells is not
that
> rare, but it is pretty darned uncommon. Putting a roll-bar on the
> front of shells, or laminating all boats with several inches of thick
> padding, might not only play hell with fluid and aerodynamics but
> might be a wasted effort, given how often these things actually do
> happen.
BPlatt: Actually, the soft bow is not a big deal to do at all--even
with
current construction techniques--and there would be no effect on the
fluid
dynamics. You merely put a dam in the mold 50cm or so aft of the
stemhead,
mold up the hull, pull the hull, put the dam back in but with the shiny
side
facing forward, fill the void with 45 kg/m^3 foam (3 pcf). The last 10
cm
or so might want to be a low-modulus type of resilient foam--would have
to
do some computing to be sure---but 45 density foam is quite easy to
crush
with the fingers.
Then, you affix the foam to the hull (having designed a mortise and
tenon
joint that is molded into the bulkhead) with some 3m 4200 adhesive on
the
whole bulkead, then paint it up, and Voilà! The foam is more than
stiff
enough for hydrodynamics, and has the same finish as the rest of the
boat.
> FELIPE:
> Before someone accuses me of giving them intestinal distress again, I
> want to emphasize that redesigning bowballs is a good idea. And, as
> the author says below, waiting for politicians (politicians??) to do
> something about this "issue" is silly.
> So why wait?
> At least three boatbuilders read this forum, maybe more. Build a
> better bowball. Send samples to the ARA, USRowing, NCAA, FISA,
> whatever the governing body is in Australia or Canada. Send a lengthy
> description about how this is better than the poor excuses that lead
> boats into battle now. Change things.
Bill Platt: Forget the bowball--if you are serious about collisions.
It has
to be a more substantial protection to be effective. The bow ball is
good
only for bumping into people while you are walking the boat up the
apron!
<SNIPPED>
And, good to be a nattering nabob when it helps get perspective.
Best regards,
Bill
ze...@zekehoskin.com
have seen exercised most often is knocking the bow lightly against car
windows, heads, etc while being carried. Preventing cosmetic damage to
vehicles and the boat itself is much less important than preventing
impalements, but it's something to keep in mind. And it does appear to
prevent eye injuries, or at least those eye injuries not involving
riggers.
Best compromise would be 3.5 cm of something as tough as tire rubber,
with an outer layer of something softer but unrippable. Michelin is
getting out of the F1 business in a year -- I doubt it would strain
their facilities much to run up a world supply of really useful
bowballs . . .
Carl Douglas
I see what you mean, but would also suggest a failure to see the wood
for the trees. Sure a hard ball might scratch something, but that's
only a cosmetic issue for what it bumps into. A softer rubber ball
would probably deflect & cause worse damage, hard or rubber coated, a
4cm ball will damage an eye pretty well - but I'm assuming at least it
isn't sharp.
I doubt rowers would act to reduce collateral property damage by a hard,
rounded bow ball protecting just the bow when they still have maybe 8
(or even 16) aggressively angular rigger ends, plus the chisel end &
sharp corner of the stern, plus an irrationally sharp-edged fin-blade,
all capable of doing more serious damage to flesh & property on & off
the water. My mind starts to boggle slightly.
Cheers -
r0w3r
F1. You only have to look back a few years to see how much progress has
been made in car safety as a result of incidents and continuous
development.
Maybe rowing should adopt a similar group to the F1 drivers safety
group. A committee of athletes to put pressure on the governing
body(ies) and event organisers to improve safety?
Now, I am not saying rowing has the money or exposure for technology to
develop at as quick a pace as in F1 but there must be more that can be
done by our governing body, boat builders, clubs and athletes to
improve safety.
Take this bow ball thread. I have seen an extraordinary range of
'formats' for the humble bow ball. IMHO, the Resolute design looks
best. The bows are near blunt and vertical with a bow ball much like
the Aussie ones mentioned above on Sykes boats.
I've seen an Empacher with the bows hooked upwards so the mounted bow
ball is literally pointing at the sky! It looks both very silly and
totally ineffective. But it's 'legal'!
Another shocker was a nice new bow ball fitted very firmly with a long
bolt that went in one side of the bow ball, through the boat and
protruded out the other side in a sharp manner. Nasty.
On the subject of crumple zones or 'soft' bow sections, this is an
excellent idea I think with the possible exception of it not working
well in the case of a glancing blow on the landing raft while 'parking'
your boat. If I had a pound for every time I've done that, I could
probably just about afford a replacement crumple zone bow.
I've got a Stampfli (sorry Carl) and I refitted my bow ball recently.
It's secured with lashings of white bathroom sealant to help fill out
the cavity where the bow point doesn't and two small screws into either
side of the bow section. It seems quite firm and I think less likely to
fail than if secured with just screws. It was supplied fitted like this
but I had to remove it to touch up a small hole with gel coat. Less
said about that the better.
It amazes me that people go out on the water without a bow ball in
place (I have seen it and vocally voiced my opinion to said crew(s))
which I think is a sad reflection on the lack of respect for safety
some people have.
So I certainly think we would benefit from safety standards for all
parts of rowing equipment and boat design/build. The bouyancy
compartment thing astonished me when I first saw a boat without
compartments (I learnt in a Carbo Craft and then Janousek 4+) not only
for bouyancy but for somewhere to keep your kit dry.
All the best to RSR readers and posters for Xmas and 2006.
Darren
Rob Collings
> A good example of safety in sport and how equipment has developed is
> F1. You only have to look back a few years to see how much progress has
> been made in car safety as a result of incidents and continuous
> development.
>
> Maybe rowing should adopt a similar group to the F1 drivers safety
> group. A committee of athletes to put pressure on the governing
> body(ies) and event organisers to improve safety?
I think the main and crucial difference is that F1 drivers seem to be
aware of the need for safety. They know what the consequences are. Most
rowers live in blissful ignorance and don't see why some people
continually bleat about bow balls and heel restraints. I've seen many
attempts to educate the masses fail simply because the masses don't
want to be educated and don't see the point. On a local level, the best
responses I have seen have occured when something has gone wrong and
finally it clicks that heel restraints do save lives, bow balls do help
prevent injury or lights really are necessary in the dark, etc.
A 'committee of athletes' selected randomly from the rowing population
would probably just decide that everything is just fine as it is, so
instead we have a committee of those who want to get involved and make
things safe. Whether the Water Safety Committee(s) does what it is
meant to do is another matter and I would hope that there is a mix of
athletes, umpires, coaches etc on all such committees to get a rounded
view.
> Now, I am not saying rowing has the money or exposure for technology to
> develop at as quick a pace as in F1 but there must be more that can be
> done by our governing body, boat builders, clubs and athletes to
> improve safety.
Most of the significant changes cost very little in terms of money. All
that is often required is a change in mindset.
> It amazes me that people go out on the water without a bow ball in
> place (I have seen it and vocally voiced my opinion to said crew(s))
> which I think is a sad reflection on the lack of respect for safety
> some people have.
An all too common occurance IMHO :-( (including those bowballs that
might as well be missing for all the good they will do) The lack of
respect/understanding is really rather widespread I think. It's a
hassle and an obstruction to rowing rather than something built into
everything we do.
Rob.
Phil
maintenance, the better. The built-in 'soft' bow, inbuilt buoyancy,
shoes (clogs?) that can't trap your feet etc. - all these things are
possible and only require smarter design rather than lashings of money
to achieve.
Anything that requires effort on the part of the athlete can be sure of
being neglected somewhere, by someone, at one time or another.
Phil.
Jeremy Fagan
> r0w3r wrote:
>
>>A good example of safety in sport and how equipment has developed is
>>F1. You only have to look back a few years to see how much progress has
>>been made in car safety as a result of incidents and continuous
>>development.
>>
>>Maybe rowing should adopt a similar group to the F1 drivers safety
>>group. A committee of athletes to put pressure on the governing
>>body(ies) and event organisers to improve safety?
>
>
> I think the main and crucial difference is that F1 drivers seem to be
> aware of the need for safety. They know what the consequences are. Most
> rowers live in blissful ignorance and don't see why some people
> continually bleat about bow balls and heel restraints. I've seen many
> attempts to educate the masses fail simply because the masses don't
> want to be educated and don't see the point. On a local level, the best
> responses I have seen have occured when something has gone wrong and
> finally it clicks that heel restraints do save lives, bow balls do help
> prevent injury or lights really are necessary in the dark, etc.
>
The problem is perception of safety. If you talk to cyclists, they'll
list their various injuries from where they've come off, like the time
when... If they have an accident, they are injured, and you can see the
blood and bruising and broken bits. It tends to make them more aware of
the risks they're taking (although it doesn't seem to stop them taking
them...)
If we capsize in rowing, we are either fine within a day or two, or
dead. There really are no in-betweens. Again, the extremes with the
bowball are likely to be either boat through you, or not very much.
I think Jane's written something about this perception in the past to do
with sailing and lifejackets.
There aren't many people in rowing the kind of horrendous scars that
cyclists seem to show off as badges of pride - although I have seen the
scars on one person who was punctured by a bow. Not nice.
Jeremy