More rowing myths regurgitated
Carl Douglas
unfounded myth-building:
http://tinyurl.com/4sm9hdr
"World Record times and world fastest times are exciting milestones in
any sport. Rowing has had some great moments. Many of these are
advanced in small increments, but there comes a time when a massive leap
forward happens.
"Sometimes that’s due to technology or equipment – think the sliding
rigger, carbon oars and kevlar boats."
Why do rowers fall for such unfounded & unproven self-delusion? There
is absolutely no statistical evidence to support any of the last
sentence from that quote.
1. There have been no step changes in performance in the last 50 years.
2. Water does not care what a boat is made of. If it preserves the
right shape in the water, weighs the same & is in all other respects
mechanically similar, it will perform identically.
3. There is no statistical evidence that the sliding rigger changed the
long curve of speed improvements over time, nor that its banning had any
contrary effect.
Rowers are going faster (at all levels) because they train much harder &
longer than in the past, are bigger, better fed, stronger & fitter.
There are technological enhancements which really will improve boat
performance, & better ways to row, but a sport which raves about the
things mentioned in that article is mostly too timorous & under-informed
to engage with the science, or take any chances, unless paying within
that product for a high-cost advertising campaign.
On which tack: I'm being assailed by an Adidas agency with invitations
to buy quantities of a totally bogus item of fashion-wear which they
fancifully call the Ion-Loop. This version actually bears teh Adidas
logo! You can see any amount of promoters of the same piece of junk if
you Google that name. It is total baloney, sheer fruit-loopery with its
spoutings about the proven effects of magnetism & negative ions (where's
the proof?), yet entering thate product name plus the word "debunk"
produces nothing.
Cheers -
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Find: http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)
ATP
"Carl Douglas" <ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8s1s7q...@mid.individual.net...
.
>
> On which tack: I'm being assailed by an Adidas agency with invitations to
> buy quantities of a totally bogus item of fashion-wear which they
> fancifully call the Ion-Loop. This version actually bears teh Adidas
> logo! You can see any amount of promoters of the same piece of junk if
> you Google that name. It is total baloney, sheer fruit-loopery with its
> spoutings about the proven effects of magnetism & negative ions (where's
> the proof?), yet entering thate product name plus the word "debunk"
> produces nothing.
>
> Cheers -
> Carl
>
magnets around pipes for boiler water treatment and around fuel lines to
increase combustion efficiency. I guess magickal forces still hold a certain
appeal...
mruscoe
> On which tack: I'm being assailed by an Adidas agency with invitations
> to buy quantities of a totally bogus item of fashion-wear which they
> fancifully call the Ion-Loop. This version actually bears teh Adidas
> logo! You can see any amount of promoters of the same piece of junk if
> you Google that name. It is total baloney, sheer fruit-loopery with its
> spoutings about the proven effects of magnetism & negative ions (where's
> the proof?), yet entering thate product name plus the word "debunk"
> produces nothing.
They could probably sell them for £10 more if they stuck a hologram on too.
ng...@aol.com
> "Sometimes that’s due to technology or equipment – think the sliding
> rigger, carbon oars and kevlar boats."
>
> Why do rowers fall for such unfounded & unproven self-delusion? There
> is absolutely no statistical evidence to support any of the last
> sentence from that quote.
>
> 1. There have been no step changes in performance in the last 50 years.
> 2. Water does not care what a boat is made of. If it preserves the
> right shape in the water, weighs the same & is in all other respects
> mechanically similar, it will perform identically.
> 3. There is no statistical evidence that the sliding rigger changed the
> long curve of speed improvements over time, nor that its banning had any
> contrary effect.
>
I remember the febrile atmosphere surrounding the arrival of
'cleavers' on the scene in the early 90's. Would we be left hopelessly
behind if we didn't embrace the new technology? Probably; let's buy
some just in case. There was a letter in the ARA's house magazine from
a coach of one of the Oxford women's college crews which claimed that
his crew had consistently gone 5 seconds faster over a series of 500
metre pieces using them(!).
We all therefore expected that the bumps races in both universities
would fail to make it as far as two minutes, as all the sad people who
couldn't afford to upgrade from their macons were mown down by their
cleaver-wielding brethren.
The carnage of course failed to materialise.
On a related point, I seem to remember a few successful crews at
Henley using wooden oars almost up until the 'big blade' era. Rudkin &
Kittermaster (1990 2x) spring to mind, and I think Hampton held on
about as long?
Oh, and (on a point completely unconnected, except that it's also an
example of people trying to go faster without actually doing any hard
work) does anyone else remember the fad about 15 years back for
wearing a butterfly plaster across the bridge of the nose? To hold the
nostrils wide open and thereby increase the flow of air I think was
the theory. Worn by those who hadn't got far enough through the user
manual which came with their body to realise that in an emergency you
are allowed to breathe through your mouth.
Mike Barker
> On 16 Feb., 06:54, Carl Douglas <c...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote:
> > "Sometimes that’s due to technology or equipment – think the sliding
> > rigger, carbon oars and kevlar boats."
Just curious - has there ever been a race between a wooden boat and
one of the modern boats ?
I seem to recall a story of a German ( ? ) athlete who raced a wooden
boat in an international competition against his hi-tech equipped
opponents and beat them ?
Walter Martindale
Rowing News a few years back did a bit of a comparison of 3
generations of boats.
91 Worlds, Laumann was using wood boat and blades.
W
Charles Carroll
> generations of boats.
Jeff Moag, "Rowing News," October 2004, p. 50
Charles Carroll
> generations of boats.
Sorry Walter,
Try p. 42 and you can now read the entire article.
Warmest regards,
Charles
sully
In the late 70s, early 80s there was a rush to composite boats.
They were considered stiffer, lighter, and simply better boats.
For a brief 3 year period, however, I can't remember who it was, but
someone showed up at worlds with a blonde wood Stampfli and did very
well, suddenly there was a rash of Stampflis everywhere....
Beautiful shells!
The wood boat Joe Burk raced in in the 1930s weighed 27-28 lbs.
Nothing wrong with the stiffness of wood boats, or the weight.
Can't get the same quality wood anymore.
By 1964, the world was convinced that macon oars were superior to the
standard blades. The two crews that raced in Tokyo with standard
blades both medaled.
Interesting to observe the inexorable drop in times in swimming.
Other than the skin suits which have been recently banned, no
equipment technology necessary.
Carl Douglas
> On Feb 16, 5:08 pm, "ng...@aol.com"<ng...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On 16 Feb., 06:54, Carl Douglas<c...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> rigger, carbon oars and kevlar boats."
>
> Just curious - has there ever been a race between a wooden boat and
> one of the modern boats ?
What is a "modern boat"? Is it anything made by slapping Kevlar, carbon
& resin into a mould that was taken of an earlier wooden boat? That
describes, still, most of the boats out there. Or is it something with
an advanced form & fittings, designed from sound first principles to
perform with higher efficiency as a racing shell?
What the water sees is the shape, not the material. And since my firm
still makes very efficient shells in a wood composite construction, in
which our clients seem to go rather well (at all levels), I think I'll
rest my case.
>
> I seem to recall a story of a German ( ? ) athlete who raced a wooden
> boat in an international competition against his hi-tech equipped
> opponents and beat them ?
Exactly. But what is "hi-tech equipped"? I'd be really interested to
know what rowers consider that term implies, & even more interested to
know their reasoning. Do they have factual evidence, or follow fashion?
Would they rather "not get it too wrong" by using the same equipment
as the rest, or take a chance on getting a better result by standing out
from the crowd? Do they believe the World Champions use the very best
equipment, or do they understand that those guys are the very best
rowers on the day. Do they even know whether that equipment was a
promotional freebie or selected & bought by the athlete?
And, just for the much-neglected & oft-abused wee folk:
Do you think it's OK to steer a boat costing tens of thousands of notes
with a couple of conflicting flattened tin plates, as your forebears
did, or would your crew go straighter & faster if you used steering kit
based on proven fluid-dynamic principles? And would spending on such a
device just a small fraction of the cost of each rower's oar, rigger,
sliding seat, slide tracks & stretcher be an unreasonable investment or
a wise move?
Only asking -
Carl Douglas
Sorry, Mike. That sentence is just not true. Underpaying the
craftsmen, & the herd wrongly denigrating their products & swallowing
all the bullshit is what did the damage.
Can you find a proven faster eight than the wooden ones which Graeme
King still builds?
>
> By 1964, the world was convinced that macon oars were superior to the
> standard blades. The two crews that raced in Tokyo with standard
> blades both medaled.
>
> Interesting to observe the inexorable drop in times in swimming.
> Other than the skin suits which have been recently banned, no
> equipment technology necessary.
>
But no disagreement with the rest.
:)
sully
Is the farm grown cedar as good a wood as the old growth? Spruce?
Mahogany?
(For shell-building purposes)..
This is a "truism" that I hold, that I've been told by some wooden
boat builders years ago.
Is this not true?
>
> Can you find a proven faster eight than the wooden ones which Graeme
> King still builds?
Nope.
Tink
I thought I remembered one in the world cup a couple of years ago, but
a quick search on the web gave:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQWab0IsG6w
Which was actually Andre Vonarburg (Swiss) using wooden oars, rather
than a wooden boat.
Charles Carroll
>> King still builds?
> Nope.
And if you cannot, then why put kevlar between laminates?
mruscoe
No, they're not wooden oars. They just have the looms painted.
Henning Lippke
> I thought I remembered one in the world cup a couple of years ago, but
> a quick search on the web gave:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQWab0IsG6w
>
> Which was actually Andre Vonarburg (Swiss) using wooden oars, rather
> than a wooden boat.
Are you sure they aren't painted carbon oars? I've seen them on TV
around that time and they clearly looked orange, not wooden. Orange
beeing the colour of his sponsor I guess.
Justus J.
> ...
>
> On which tack: I'm being assailed by an Adidas agency with invitations
> to buy quantities of a totally bogus item of fashion-wear which they
> fancifully call the Ion-Loop. This version actually bears teh Adidas
> logo! You can see any amount of promoters of the same piece of junk if
> you Google that name. It is total baloney, sheer fruit-loopery with its
> spoutings about the proven effects of magnetism & negative ions (where's
> the proof?), yet entering thate product name plus the word "debunk"
> produces nothing.
>
Carl, you TOTALLY missed the point: It's a LIFESTYLE product (reading on
their homepage). No engineering, no physics, just appearance and fashion.
I reckon you already submitted your email address to their mailing list
then? :-)
Best,
Justus
Carl Douglas
Sorry Justus, can you please explain the meaning of that quaint
neologism, "lifestyle"? And I'm already on their mailing list (they
sell stripey rowing shoes), which is how this particular piece of junk
was brought to my notice & why I question the vendors' rationality.
I can imagine the derision that'd have assailed a wearer of such risible
junk when I was a kid. Now, despite the growth in accessible technology
(but more likely as a reaction against it) serious, self-conscious & fit
adults wear them, in public would you believe, supposedly to ward off
all manner of demonic ju-ju & hocus-pocus.
Whence cometh all those negative ions if no positive (& thus supposedly
harmful) ions are emitted in direct proportion? And isn't such unipolar
ionisation likely to cause a nasty build-up of static charge? Best not
to wear one when refuelling your car or outboard motor, or even when
quaffing a Highland Malt. Not to mention health problems which might
result from exposure to too many ions, leading to formation of free
radicals which are often regarded as the spawn of Satan.
Snake oil, anyone?
Mike Barker
wrote:
Is there a way to measure the "stiffness" of a boat ? Clamp it at
either end and hang a weight in the centre and then measure
deflection ?
How do we actually know a kevlar boat is stiffer than a wooden
boat ?
Also, are their a set of metrics we can use to determine the
performance of a boat - stiffness, water friction, wetted area, wind
resistance etc. Or do we just use weight and length :-) And
perhaps the "lifestyle" metrics Carl refers to - colour, poularity,
and trendiness ?
With out some numbers its all just speculation ?
robthompson
> On Feb 16, 10:57 pm, "Charles Carroll" <charles_carr...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> How do we actually know a kevlar boat is stiffer than a wooden
> boat ?
>
>Kevlar isnt in itself used to add stiffness to anything it's laminated into other than the extra stiffness gained by adding an additional ply of any material. It's a particularly tough material which will render a shell very strong. It is also susceptable to UV so really needs encapsulating as in wooden boats. Hence the colour change over time when not protected by paint, gel coat or other laminates.
The stiffness of a shell made from Kevlar is attained by putting
honeycomb between plies of Kevlar. The stiffness of carbon, glass and
Kevlar boats is also affected by the orientation of the plies as they
are layed into the mould. This is the same with purely wooden boats
and explains why the grain of the wood runs in different directions
when layed up. Boat stiffness is not just from bow to stern, you also
need to bear in mind twisting moments. You could make a boat that was
incredibly stiff along its length but twisted quite easily.
Simon
> Here, entitled: "Once thought impossible…", is but the latest example of
> unfounded myth-building:
> http://tinyurl.com/4sm9hdr
>
> On which tack: I'm being assailed by an Adidas agency with invitations
> to buy quantities of a totally bogus item of fashion-wear which they
> fancifully call the Ion-Loop. This version actually bears teh Adidas
> logo! You can see any amount of promoters of the same piece of junk if
> you Google that name. It is total baloney, sheer fruit-loopery with its
> spoutings about the proven effects of magnetism & negative ions (where's
> the proof?), yet entering thate product name plus the word "debunk"
> produces nothing.
>
> Cheers -
> Carl
That reminds me of the Power Balance bracelet fiasco in Australia
http://scepticsbook.com/2010/12/22/power-balance-admits-to-false-claims/
Thankfully they have actually been brought to task and ordered to
offer full refunds to all customers who desire them.
On the topic magnets around pipes, it is sad to see that British Gas
are now endorsing and fitting houses in hard water areas with
Hydroflow pipe magnets. I'm on their Homecare plan and when we
recently had a blockage in our heat exchanger they offered to fit a
Hydroflow magnet (at a cost of some £150) to prevent limescale build
up in the future! Homecare doesn't cover faults due to limescale
deposits but will cover future problems if you have the hydroflow
fitted. So despite my full knowledge that this was a piece of junk; at
the price it was worth buying to insure against future problems (which
we have duly had)...
Tinus
> On Feb 16, 11:54 am, Carl Douglas <c...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Here, entitled: "Once thought impossible…", is but the latest example of
> > unfounded myth-building:
> > http://tinyurl.com/4sm9hdr
>
> > On which tack: I'm being assailed by an Adidas agency with invitations
> > to buy quantities of a totally bogus item of fashion-wear which they
> > fancifully call the Ion-Loop. This version actually bears teh Adidas
> > logo! You can see any amount of promoters of the same piece of junk if
> > you Google that name. It is total baloney, sheer fruit-loopery with its
> > spoutings about the proven effects of magnetism & negative ions (where's
> > the proof?), yet entering thate product name plus the word "debunk"
> > produces nothing.
>
> > Cheers -
> > Carl
>
> Thankfully they have actually been brought to task and ordered to
> offer full refunds to all customers who desire them.
>
> On the topic magnets around pipes, it is sad to see that British Gas
> are now endorsing and fitting houses in hard water areas with
> Hydroflow pipe magnets. I'm on their Homecare plan and when we
> recently had a blockage in our heat exchanger they offered to fit a
> Hydroflow magnet (at a cost of some £150) to prevent limescale build
> up in the future! Homecare doesn't cover faults due to limescale
> deposits but will cover future problems if you have the hydroflow
> fitted. So despite my full knowledge that this was a piece of junk; at
> the price it was worth buying to insure against future problems (which
> we have duly had)...
If there are people who are susceptible to placebo effects why would
you not make use of it with those people? I believe that not making
use of it would only result in worse results and that's not because of
the magic. Whatever works, however it works, must be used. The voodoo
doll becomes a mascot.
Although there is a contrary example: food health claims need to be
substantiated by law and for good reasons. The negative reasons
against false claims are that it could cause people not to look for
professional care and also the substances to which the claims are
attributed could be harmful and have side effects,
In the case of the magnet stuff only the former reason applies, it is
not harmful for anything but the bank account. The magnet-superstition
equivalent of not looking for professional care would be only be
people not looking for positive care (I doubt people will die of
disease because they believed magnets would help them better than
doctors). Someone being benefited by a placebo effect might
alternatively go search professional psychological help. I am not sure
if professional psychology has a better price/quality and whether it
is advanced enough. Psychology as a science can sometimes be very
vague or turbulent.
In the end, I believe there will be some place for superstition like
for instance magnets or ion-stuff. It is typical of these
(semi-)religious debates that often only the technical claims and
inner workings are being argued about but what is neglected are the
(positive) effects of superstition on people. The fact that a
superstitious believe is false does not necessarily mean that it is
bad.
Carl Douglas
> On Feb 17, 11:19 am, Simon<simonpgo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 16, 11:54 am, Carl Douglas<c...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> unfounded myth-building:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/4sm9hdr
>>
>>> On which tack: I'm being assailed by an Adidas agency with invitations
>>> to buy quantities of a totally bogus item of fashion-wear which they
>>> fancifully call the Ion-Loop. This version actually bears teh Adidas
>>> logo! You can see any amount of promoters of the same piece of junk if
>>> you Google that name. It is total baloney, sheer fruit-loopery with its
>>> the proof?), yet entering thate product name plus the word "debunk"
>>> produces nothing.
>>
>>> Cheers -
>>> Carl
>>
>> That reminds me of the Power Balance bracelet fiasco in Australiahttp://scepticsbook.com/2010/12/22/power-balance-admits-to-false-claims/
>> Thankfully they have actually been brought to task and ordered to
>> offer full refunds to all customers who desire them.
>>
>> On the topic magnets around pipes, it is sad to see that British Gas
>> are now endorsing and fitting houses in hard water areas with
>> Hydroflow pipe magnets. I'm on their Homecare plan and when we
>> recently had a blockage in our heat exchanger they offered to fit a
Flogging garbage to fools & the under-informed is, of course, OK under
the ancient "caveat emptor" principle - until IMHO you get into the
faiths & beliefs stuff upon which you touch above.
So, would you say that Voodoo has not had severely damaging consequences
over a very long time for the people of Haiti? And would the
consequences of the ghastly earthquake have been anything like so severe
but for the deadly mix of Voodoo, corruption, gang warfare,
dictatorship, economic depression & hopelessness? And would you say
that religious zealotry, including that dressed up under various -isms
such as, but far from exclusively, communism, has not done immense harm,
driving out much of the potential good intentions from which maybe they
sprang?
Back to Ion-Loopiness: the UK has laws against mis-selling, e.g. the
Trades Descriptions Act of 1968, to protect the vulnerable from
deceptive promotional tricks:
"This law empowers the judiciary to punish companies or individuals who
make false claims about the products or services that they sell."
I'd say the Ion-Loop scam falls directly under that law. What prevents
litigation under the Act may be the gullibility of the victims, their
wish to remain deluded & the embarrassment in admitting to having been
conned.
Vance Packard's hidden persuaders have so refined the tactics of snake
oil commerce that we become easy prey at their hands, ready to believe
almost anything that is heavily promoted, particularly if promoted with
subtle promises of something for nothing under a supposedly reputable
company's logo.
What does that tell us about principles, schminciples, in business?
It's nothing new. Most of us have read Hans Andersen's tale of the
Emperor's New Clothes. I just wish, silly me, there was less of it.
Carl Douglas
>> all the bullshit is what did the damage.
>
> Is the farm grown cedar as good a wood as the old growth? Spruce?
> Mahogany?
> (For shell-building purposes)..
>
> This is a "truism" that I hold, that I've been told by some wooden
> boat builders years ago.
>
> Is this not true?
No, it is not true. Which is not to say that you don't have to look
harder & longer for what you need.
Markets for materials get skewed by poor husbandry & commercial
rapacity, both of which affect timber trading as they also affect food
supplies, metal prices & whether we invest for better health in poorer
countries.
Wood is one material which, in principle, is infinitely sustainable -
plant, grow, harvest, re-plant (with good practice) & so on ad
infinitum. Destruction of woodlands & ecosystems by mining, oil
extraction, ranching, hydropower, driving highways through virgin
forest, soya plantations & extermination of the indigenous populations,
& in every case by human greed & thoughtlessness, is essentially
short-term & non-sustainable. Who ever heard of sustainable petroleum
or coal extraction, where we rip out & waste the fossil products of many
millions of years of organic growth - stored sunshine - for a couple of
centuries lived high on the hog?
>
>>
>> Can you find a proven faster eight than the wooden ones which Graeme
>> King still builds?
>
> Nope.
>
Nuff said :)
Cheers -
MagnusBurbanks
strongly enough the hydroflow magnet will work, the placebo effect
will do the rest.
MagnusBurbanks
softening":
"Physical conditioners claim that subjecting water to a magnetic field
or radio waves provide similar benefits to water softening. While
physical conditioning does not remove calcium and magnesium and
therefore cannot claim to soften water in the traditional sense, there
are opinions that 'physical conditioning can make water seem softer.'
One claim is that 'the effect of the physical conditioning … is to
cause the calcium salts to precipitate differently such that they are
less encrusting.' If true, this would require many chemistry and
physical chemistry textbooks to be rewritten."
JD
wrote:
> Your fittings, boiler, pipes and radiators simply need to believe
> strongly enough the hydroflow magnet will work, the placebo effect
> will do the rest.
The origional statement touted "the sliding rigger, carbon oars and
kevlar boats." I agree that those changes are incremental at best.
Some of them have contributed in other, very significant ways, such as
shell longevity and ruggedness. But the author did not mention
hatchets, although others did here.
In 1992, Dartmouth, a few miles from the home of Concept 2, were the
first US college crew to row with hatchet blades. Despite being iced
out into early spring, they dominated the competition when they had
hatchets and others did not. I can recall the hubub over the new oar
shape and the cries of unfair as Dartmouth stunned opponents by large
margins. Angry demands that Dartmouth stop using hatchets, and
frantic calls to Concept 2 to get in the queue for oars were common.
By the Eastern Sprints, some of the field had acquired hatches as
well, and those that didn't did not fair well. By IRA's the field,
similarly equipped, had closed the gap and the final was a photo
finish. Dartmouth were a good crew, but never known for depth then or
since, yet even their JV had been dominating opponents. In all
fairness Dartmouth was coached by Larry Gluckman, one the best college
coaches in US history. I can cite no emperical data, but I know of no
modern innovation that has had such an apparent instantaneous effect,
nor that has caused the clamour on the US college scene that hatchets
have had. -JD
Carl Douglas
Were copper a non-conductor, you might fluffily argue that
electro-magnetic induction of currents in the flowing water might
conceivably have some electro-chemical effect. But copper is an
excellent conductor, so that one's a busted flush.
Be handy to have an anti-Wikipedia - dedicated to exposing all the
ludicrous anti-scientific claims so deeply embedded in urban mythology?
Perhaps there is?
But I was chuffed to read Simon's report on the exposure of that junk
bracelet device in Oz. A very small step for common sense.
Now back to rowing, where the colour of paint makes boats fast, & where
water senses the presence of carbon in fibrous form & gets smartly out
of its way - except where said carbon is used in oars, of course.
sully
> On Feb 17, 7:49 am, MagnusBurbanks <magnus.burba...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
snip
n or
> since, yet even their JV had been dominating opponents. In all
> fairness Dartmouth was coached by Larry Gluckman, one the best college
> coaches in US history. I can cite no emperical data, but I know of no
> modern innovation that has had such an apparent instantaneous effect,
> nor that has caused the clamour on the US college scene that hatchets
> have had. -JD
Yes, there was a panic, more than any other equipment change I can
remember,
even the "Robinson Racing Shell" scare.... :^)
Interestingly, the popular story goes that Redgrave/Pinset tested
hatchets vs Macons and found no difference, though this is hearsay, I
certainly wasn't there....
BTW, the US patent for the sliding rigger was registered in 1877.
Tinus
> Now back to rowing, where the colour of paint makes boats fast, & where
> water senses the presence of carbon in fibrous form & gets smartly out
> of its way - except where said carbon is used in oars, of course.
There is a small amount of research about the effect of colour on
exercise/sports performance. The problem is that so many research is
conducted that inevitably some positive research is published and now
it is waiting for either rejection of acceptance of the idea by new
additional research. However, it does not sound unreasonable. Colour
may effect your mood and if your mood is good your performance may
improve as well. I wouldn't be surprised if rowers at regional/club
level would perform better merely because of the brandname or colour
of their boat. I would be highly surprised if there is not any effect
however limited it may be.
Tinus
> Flogging garbage to fools & the under-informed is, of course, OK under
> the ancient "caveat emptor" principle - until IMHO you get into the
> faiths & beliefs stuff upon which you touch above.
>
In drawing the border I feel that freedom of choice is very important.
I don't see the role of government in paternalising every aspect of
human life. The more it happens to constrict freedom (I don't mean the
freedom to deceive others but instead the freedom to become deceived
yourself) the more it takes the spirit out of life. People must be
able to make decisions themselves and also, the government is even not
able to decide for everyone what is best for them. In deciding the
position of the border I believe that we should also allow people to
reject scientism as superior to other ideologies. If people want to
believe something unscientific as being true then it's their choice
not mine. So whatever false claim people wish to follow they should be
free if they have made the decision not to believe science. For
instance, people should be allowed to go to fortune tellers. In this
argument the key is in the nuance of the term deception relative to
the term fraud.
It would be different if something got falsely promoted in the name of
(proper) scientific research and hence people have not made the choice
not to follow science. This is clearly the case in medicine in which
we have certain expectations about the rigidity of the performed
research. This is clearly not the case for the fortune teller. There
is a general consent that fortune telling has no scientific proof.
I would say that the colour of boats but also many more technical
stuff like strips at the edge of blades can be placed close to fortune
telling on the spectrum from scientific to folklore. Or at least
somewhere in between.
> Vance Packard's hidden persuaders have so refined the tactics of snake
> oil commerce that we become easy prey at their hands, ready to believe
> almost anything that is heavily promoted, particularly if promoted with
> subtle promises of something for nothing under a supposedly reputable
> company's logo.
>
> What does that tell us about principles, schminciples, in business?
> It's nothing new. Most of us have read Hans Andersen's tale of the
> Emperor's New Clothes. I just wish, silly me, there was less of it.
I wouldn't like having less of it. We are continuously submitted to
deceptions and we like it. Without deception one wouldn't be able to
enjoy/consume the additional marketing value of a-brands. The world
which we live in is more than just matter and physics. Especially now
and in the future psychological factors become more important in
creating value.
Charles Carroll
When you equate "religious zealotry" with "snake oil" you cross into dangerous territory. One man’s “religious zealotry” is another man’s cherished belief.
We all know that snake oil, by definition, is a worthless preparation fraudulently peddled as a cure. But Martijn, in introducing the idea of the placebo effect, introduces a difficult issue. I have never met a physician who completely discounts the placebo effect. We may not understand the role belief plays in medical cures, and we may feel uncomfortable when it is introduced, but we cannot discount it.
Having said this, I think it important to point out just how large is the question this leads to.
We here on this side of the pond dissolved our political bonds with Great Britain on the grounds that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights … among [which] are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Freedom of belief has been, is, and most likely will continue to be among these rights.
Would you deny us this right? Or yourself?
Whatever your answer, I think you will find that when you think hard about this question you will see that it begs an even more important question, namely, is this right absolute?
For example, if one man’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness conflicts with another man’s right to same, whose right prevails?
To put the matter into the context of this discussion, let’s consider one of my favorite examples, Christian Science. When an adult decides on the basis of religious belief to decline treatment for a child, does the state have a right to abridge the adult’s right to freedom of belief?
In the interest of full disclosure, I have to admit that a long time ago I answered for myself the Christian Science question. Yes, indeed, as the guarantor of “life, liberty, and the pursuit to happiness,” the state is obligated to interfere on behalf of the child.
But conflicts of rights are never easy questions. Whenever I count of own votes they are seldom unanimous.
As I said, one man’s religious zealotry is another man’s cherished belief.
By the way, here is an interesting question about science and reason. I think you would call it a thought question. Say we could construct machines that could think and learn for themselves, and that said machines could do so with flawless logic. Would these machines all arrive at the same conclusions?
Just to keep the discussion, assuming anyone is interested in it, in the context of rowing – would these machines all build the same boats (same length, width, hull geometry, etc. etc. etc.)
Cordially,
Charles
Charles Carroll
This post and the next post should be self-explanatory. Thought you
might find them interesting.
Cordially,
Charles
----------------------
Innovations in Oar Technology: Transition to a New Dominant Design
Renata Pomponi December 13, 1994 15.932: Technology Strategy
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the many knowledgeable people who provided
tours of their facilities and generously donated their time to be
interviewed for this research: Dick Dreissigacker, Peter
Dreissigacker, and Larry Gluckman at Concept II; Jim Dreher and Mike
Dreher at the Durham Boat Company; Doug Martin of Martin Designs; Oaks
Ames of Alden Ocean Shells; Ted Perry of East & West Custom Boats;
Gordon Hamilton, M.I.T. Varsity Men¹s Heavyweight Coach; Dave O¹Neill,
Boston College Varsity Women¹s Coach; Steve Gantz, U.S. National
Rowing Team; and Terry Friel from the U.S. Rowing Association.
1.0 Introduction
Rowing equipment has evolved considerably since the rough-hewn wooden
hulls and oars first used for sport in the mid-1800s. Today¹s crew
programs have annual budgets averaging $500,000 at the most
competitive universities, with huge investments being made in shells,
electronic speaker systems, rowing machines, and blades. Advancements
in rowing technology can be divided into two categories: materials and
design. The advent of composite materials to replace the bulky wooden
predecessors was certainly a significant breakthrough for both boats
and oars. However, while hull design has been roughly stable for the
past century, with only incremental improvements to gain minor speed
advantages, oar design has gone through considerable upheaval. In
1991, a radical new oar shape, the “hatchet” blade, was introduced and
quickly established itself as the new dominant design to the virtual
exclusion of the previous form. Within a year, nearly all competitive
rowing programs had switched to the new blades, and most, if not all,
of the major oar manufacturers had introduced designs of their own.
This paper examines the technology trajectory of the oar industry,
focusing on the transition to the hatchet dominant design. The story
behind the initial development of the new blade outlines the approach
to innovation management within the rowing equipment industry. The
conditions that permitted the market embrace of a new design following
over a century of tradition are examined in detail from both a demand
and a supply perspective. The strategy used by the primary
manufacturer to gain market acceptance of the hatchet design is of
particular interest, and interviews were conducted within the rowing
community to judge user response and subsequent adoption patterns. An
account of innovation management within the industry is also
presented, including design approaches and competitive positioning,
accompanied by an analysis of the trajectory of oar technology. The
impact of tradition on the acceptance of innovation is explored in
detail.
2.0 Background of the U.S. Oar Industry
Competitive rowing in the United States has a rich history of
creativity in equipment design, dating back to when the sport was
first introduced from Europe well prior to the turn of the century.
Before a mass market existed for manufactured oars, hand-crafted
one-of-a-kind designs could be found in nearly every boathouse [Nolte,
1993]. Beginning in the mid-1960s, a single design gradually became
adopted as the standard shape for the oar blade. This so-called
“Macon” design had a spoon-like blade shape symmetrical about the
shaft (see exhibit 1). The shape became established as the dominant
design and was mass-produced around the world, first in wood and then
later in composite materials.
The U.S. oar industry currently consists of four producers, all
located in northern New England, who constitute the bulk of the
market: Concept II, Durham Boat Company, Alden Ocean Shells, and
Piantedosi Oar Company. World-wide, Concept II currently holds over
half of the total market and is number one in the elite competitive
market. Concept II likewise encompasses the vast majority of the U.S.
market. At 1,000 oars per year, Durham produces approximately
one-tenth of Concept II¹s share in the competitive market and sells a
significant percentage of their output overseas. Alden focuses on
rough-water equipment, both boats and oars, for mainly the
recreational rower and is the majority leader in this segment. Each of
the three manufactures solely in composites. Piantedosi is the leading
manufacturer of wooden oars, a dramatically smaller business since the
introduction of artificial substitutes in the mid-70s. Piantedosi
recently became Alden¹s supplier for wooden oars when Alden narrowed
their focus to composite-based production only. A number of other
low-volume manufacturers make up a negligible portion of the total
U.S. sales, accompanied by a few European and Australia imports.
3.0 Introduction of the Hatchet Blade
In 1991, following nearly thirty years of Macon dominance, Concept II
introduced a radical new blade design, dubbed the “Big Blade” ,
consisting of a hatchet-like shape asymmetrical about the shaft (see
exhibit 2). The history behind this product is one typical of
interactions within the rowing community, dominated by dynamic
personalities, seat-of-the-pants ingenuity, and a small-town
atmosphere. Although Concept II was clearly the first to profit from
the innovation, competitors Durham and Alden were both partially
involved in instigating its development. This section describes the
activity in each organization regarding the hatchet design,
accompanied by a sample of reactions from the rowing community.
3.1 The Market Leader: Concept II
Concept II was started by two brothers, Dick and Peter Dreissigacker.
Both came from engineering backgrounds, with Dick having been an
Olympic rower in his youth. The company employs about 40 workers in
its Morrisville, Vermont factory, with the majority of design,
prototype, and testing work done by the Dreissigacker brothers. The
company entered the oar business in 1976 as the first to commercialize
carbon fiber composite oars. In 1981, they expanded their product base
to include rowing machines, called ergometers, which quickly became
the preeminent off-season training device for oarsmen and a
significant source of revenue for Concept II. The company manufactured
only Macon blades until 1987, when they introduced an alternative
design, with more blade area around the curve, known as the “delta”
blade. An asymmetric blade with similar area to the Macon blade was
introduced and sold in 1989. Although there was some market interest,
the Macon blade remained the primary design, and not much call now
remains for the delta or the original asymmetric blades.
In the spring of 1991, the Dreissigackers became aware of new blade
design projects being conducted by the Durham Boat Company and various
European manufactures. At the 1991 World Championships, several teams
from the United Kingdom competed with an asymmetrical blade made by
the British company, Hi-Lock [FISA Coach, Fall 1992]. Following the
regatta, the brothers decided that if anyone was going to come out
with a new blade shape, it should be them. They began to look for
areas with the greatest potential impact at which to concentrate their
research efforts. In doing so, they experimented with an asymmetrical
blade shape and came to the conclusion that simultaneously shortening
the shaft length (the “outboard” dimension) by six to ten centimeters
and increasing the blade area by 17 percent would increase boat speed
most effectively. The resultant Big Blade was a radical departure from
both the Macon and the Hi-Lock Power Blade, which was indeed
asymmetrical but had no change in either shaft length or blade area.
In the fall of 1991, Concept II received the first prototype of the
SpeedBOSS , an electronic device to measure hull speed invented by
Brookes & Gatehouse Rowing. This instrument allowed the brothers to
perform precise quantitative testing instead of just relying on feel,
and the consistency of timing increased the reliability of their
results. Tests performed in a pair shell rowed by the Dreissigackers
showed a two percent increase in speed over the traditional Macon
blades. Concept II donated a set of Big Blades to Dartmouth College
and several single scullers for use in the 1991 Head of the Charles
Regatta, the largest single-day rowing competition in the world.
Rowing in the four with coxswain event, Dartmouth unfortunately never
finished the race, having hit a bridge abutment just as they were
passing an announcer who remarked upon the distinct blade style to the
spectators. Regardless of the hapless performance of the crew, the Big
Blade oars were nonetheless introduced to the rowing community in
spectacular fashion.
Concept II continued their launch campaign by sending sample oars to
several Boston-area collegiate crews, some who ended up liking them
and some who didn¹t. Most coaches were reluctant to try the new shape
since it was so noticeably different from the traditional Macon. Those
who did often used the oars in easy long-distance practices where the
two percent speed advantage was not apparent. Similarly, without
access to precise measurement instruments, the coaches were unable to
gauge the difference. The Big Blade¹s formal introduction came at the
1991 United States Rowing Convention in Seattle that December. All in
all, no one in the rowing community paid much attention.
The spring of 1992 brought a turn-about in support for the Big Blade
in the form of the “Dartmouth Effect.” Dartmouth College, who
typically had a slow early season due to the delayed defrosting of New
Hampshire lakes, did remarkably well in the initial rounds of the
college racing circuit. Orders started pouring in, with every Monday
morning bringing more telephone calls to Concept II from coaches who
wanted hatchets for the next weekend¹s race. Those who were initially
conservative quickly changed their minds after being beaten by a
school rowing with the new oars. By the Eastern Sprints regatta in
May, the major championship race for the region, all except a few of
the major universities were rowing with Big Blades. The 1992 Olympics
in Barcelona, at which over half the competing boats rowed with Big
Blades, provided a similar entrance into international territory.
Within a year, the Big Blade had firmly taken hold of the market. In
the 1993 World Championships, 63 out of 69 total medals (23 of 23
gold) were awarded to teams using Concept II blades [FISA Coach, Fall
1993]. In the 1994 Worlds, only one or two medals were won without the
Big Blade, and one of those was suspected to be either a foreign
competitor¹s shaft with a Concept II blade attached or an exact copy
molded from a Big Blade. Concept II now sells a product mix of
approximately 90 percent hatchet blades.
3.2 Competitive Response: Durham Boat Company
Located in the New Hampshire village of the same name, the Durham
Boat Company (DBC) is a small family business whose six employees are
all elite athletes encouraged to fit their work hours around a
full-time training schedule. Bob Dreher, son of DBC¹s owner Jim,
started making oars for his own use in 1989, the year before he won
the World Championships in the single scull event. As his blade-making
technique evolved, he began selling sculling oars to his fellow
National team members, and the business was expanded to a modern
composite manufacturing facility.
DBC began selling hatchets copied from a mold of the Concept II blade
in 1992. Their own tests showed no measurable speed advantage from the
hatchet design, but Jim Dreher, remarking that he had to follow the
market leader, decided to offer them because that was what his
customers demanded. Although the general shape of the Dreher blade was
copied from a mold of the Concept II design, it differs from the Big
Blade in three key elements: a flattened tip, which DBC considers a
more influential dimension than the blade area; a carbon handle, which
reduces weight by over twenty percent compared to a wooden handle; and
an adjustable length shaft with an interchangeable blade system. A set
of Dreher blades was used at the 1994 World Championships by the
lightweight women¹s four, who won the gold. DBC now sells hatchets at
a mix of between 80 and 90 percent for sculls and to the virtual
exclusion of their previous Macon style for sweep oars.
3.3 Parallel Stream of Innovation: Alden Ocean Shells
Alden Ocean Shells differs from Concept II and DBC in that their
primary product is rowing boats; most, if not all, of the oars they
sell accompany the sale of a shell. As the name implies, the company
is also directed at a different market segment - rough water,
typically recreational, rowing instead of competitive racing. In fact,
their boats so pervade the rough water market that is it often
referred to as “Alden class” rowing, regardless of the other 70-plus
brands of recreational boats available in the U.S. The harsh
environment found in open water rowing places unique demands on blade
design. Negligible cross-over between the two markets does exist,
usually in the form of an Alden shell owner who purchases Concept II
blades. Usually, however, the Alden boat buyer is new to the sport and
therefore willing to purchase whatever oar the salesman recommends.
While this means that the Alden oar market is somewhat closed to
competition, it also permits greater design freedom than is found in
the closely watched, tradition-dependent atmosphere of competitive
rowing. In fact, some of the most innovative approaches to oar design
can be found tucked away in the Alden workshop, where new shapes are
tested on a regular basis. Since the market does not really intersect
with that of Concept II and DBC, the oar development at Alden can be
thought of as a parallel stream of innovation, and thus should be
considered in order to augment the historical perspective of
asymmetrical blade development.
Doug Martin, the son of Alden¹s founder, was in charge of blade
design until the company changed hands and now serves as a consultant.
Unlike the Dreissigackers, he is a firm believer in a physics-based
approach to oar design. In 1976, a personal interest in hang-gliding
led him to the concept of modeling a rowing blade as an aerodynamic
wing, with the water acting in place of air. This insight sparked him
to test a wide variety of unconventional blade shapes, often as many
as one a day, over the next thirteen years, including one constructed
of flat plywood slats, one that was five times wider than it was long,
and one that was a perfect circle (see exhibit 3). In 1987, he first
experimented with an asymmetrical blade shape, noticing that Macon
blades produced too much force compared to the water speed. He then
proceeded to cut off two-thirds of the blade area to achieve a better
lift-to-drag ratio. The results of this effort were manufactured for
sale two years later as the graphite “Douglas Deltor,” a hatchet-style
blade that is much smaller and more pointed at the tip than the Big
Blade. Described as “forgiving and easy to use,” the Deltor has been
enormously successful among Alden rowers and has been used to win
several major open water endurance races.
3.4 Market Response
The perspective of the user, in this case rowing coaches and
athletes, is always a crucial factor in the success of an innovation.
Gordon Hamilton, coach of the M.I.T. men¹s varsity heavyweight rowing
program, remembers noticing immediately the unusually strong puddles
left by the Big Blades at the 1991 Head of the Charles Regatta and
felt that the new shape was obviously an improvement in terms of power
transference. Unable to borrow the demonstration set sent out by
Concept II during the winter training period, he nonetheless bought a
set in March 1992 for his top varsity boat. The hatchet¹s speed
advantage became quantifiable to him when he purchased another set for
his junior varsity boat, who promptly decreased their margin relative
to the varsity by four seconds, or slightly more than one percent,
over 2000 meters (the standard sprint racing distance).
Early in the 1992 season, after Dartmouth had won a race or two, some
members of the EARC attempted to ban the Big Blades from use until the
following year on the grounds that some schools could not afford to
buy them until the next budgetary cycle and that their use therefore
constituted an unfair advantage. Those in favor of the ban included
Harry Parker, the Harvard varsity coach whose team had immediately
bought a set the past fall. M.I.T.¹s Coach Hamilton protested, arguing
that all the teams would have the new style oars by the next season
anyway and that there was no sense in postponing distribution. He felt
that Concept II had gone out of their way to meet demand for the
blades that spring and that teams that had Big Blades should be able
to race with them in the same way that teams who could afford better
boats did. After much debate, the ban was opposed (and Parker¹s crew
returned to their hatchets). As noted above, all of the EARC members
had Big Blades in time for the Eastern Sprints championship regatta in
May. The Big Blade had certainly become a competitive necessity in
collegiate racing.
As for the rowers themselves, first impressions ranged from “I wonder
how long that¹ll last?” to “What the heck is that?”. Those who had
been in the sport for a long time knew that past innovations in rowing
equipment had little or no objective research behind them and so
should be taken “with grain of salt.” Others felt that the new design
made sense, while admitting that the hatchet shape certainly looked
funny to those accustomed to Macons. As the new oars became more
widely dispersed, the speed advantage was tempered by concerns about
the effect of the hatchet shape on the rowing stroke. The conventional
wisdom in the elite rowing community was that hatchets provided the
most advantage to mid-level crews, since the greater force on the
water made them more forgiving of poor technique. Athletes at the
Boston Rowing Center, a National Team training site, used Macon blades
for technique workouts even after they got hatchets for racing. In
general, although teams were going faster, they felt crews weren¹t
rowing as well with hatchets from a technical perspective, since not
enough was understood about how to rig the boat or change the rowing
stroke to accommodate the differing forces (rules of thumb that
evolved to fit the Macon shape no longer applied). This opinion was
verified by the Italians, who after winning six straight gold medals
in the World Championships, dropped to fifth place in 1992 when they
switched to hatchets without varying their rigging or rowing style.
At a lower level, where the intricacies of blade technique were not
as well understood, the Big Blades took on a mystique that provided a
psychological advantage to crews that owned them. For example, when
M.I.T. was racing a crew still using Macon blades, Hamilton overheard
the opposing coach telling his team before the race, “If they beat
you, it¹s because of those oars.” Hamilton immediately passed on the
story to his rowers, showing them that they had their opponents
mentally beaten even before they got on the water. This type of
emotional advertising was mitigated in circles outside the EARC and
the reach of the “Dartmouth effect,” where the Big Blades were
initially less common and therefore seen more as an oddity instead of
a threat.
Charles Carroll
Transition to a New Dominant Design
Renata Pomponi December 13, 1994
4.0 Innovation Management in the Rowing Industry
The introduction of the hatchet blade provides a good opportunity for
the examination of innovation management in the industry. In a market
where total sales are relatively low and tradition is extremely
valued, making money is as much a matter of personal style as of
business acumen. In order for an idea to become an innovation, the
manufacture must have both a high performance design and a successful
marketing mechanism. The three companies profiled here take remarkable
different approaches in terms of design and marketing, as outlined
below.
4.1 Design Approaches
As evident from the development history, Concept II and Alden are at
opposite ends of the spectrum in relation to design methodology. The
Dreissigackers¹ approach can be described not only as low-tech but as
no-tech. Considering laboratory testing to be too far removed from the
real world, they performed all research by trial and error based on
the feel of the blade in the water. Starting with a raw oversized
blank, they rowed and trimmed, rowed and trimmed, until it “felt
right” to their highly experienced bodies. Only one variable was
changed at a time to keep the process simple and to allow comparative
testing. Since 1991, they have completed over 100 days of on-the-water
tests consisting of timed pieces alternating between Big Blade
prototypes and Macons. This rapid feedback and prototyping approach
gave them an extremely short development cycle; only six months passed
between their decision to develop a new oar and the first finished
product. Speed was a key factor in their eventually success, since
several overseas competitors also had new designs in progress.
Development strategy at the Durham Boat Company falls close to that
at Concept II. Bob Dreher comes from an art background instead of an
engineering one like Martin or the Dreissigackers, but his strong
rowing talent and those of the DBC employee/athletes provide a fertile
testing ground from a lead-user viewpoint. Since rowing involves many
interdependent factors, such as boat type, rigging, and personal
strength and expertise, no paper or computer design can really predict
what will make a difference. Trial and error becomes a valid approach
when design choices are based on what the DBC rowers like. As
competitive athletes, they are unlikely to approve a design on the
grounds of company loyalty if they do not believe it will truly help
them row faster.
In contrast, Martin endorsed a highly analytical approach in his oar
development work. His technical facility with physics and aerodynamics
allowed him to propose designs that had a good chance of success from
the start. The sheer number and variability of the designs he produced
over a thirteen-year period speaks to his skill in applying
theoretical fluid dynamics to a practical medium. His testing method
showed creativity as well and relies again on his analytical ability
rather than rowing prowess. To judge the efficiency of a blade, he
attached a metal probe to the bottom of the test blade and then rowed
along the edge of tidal flat. When the tide went out, he was able to
view the pattern his blade had traced in the mud remaining. Martin
firmly believed in scientific rigor of his design, citing the need for
extreme reliability when selling ocean equipment that will face
variable conditions. In the end, finances instead of competitive
pressure kept him from doing all the research he wanted to, but he was
left with the popular Deltor asymmetric design.
4.2 Marketing Approaches
Any market¹s attitude towards technology is tempered by financial
constraints, and so it is with rowing equipment. Since the total
number of rowing programs is rather small, each sale takes on a high
proportion of the seller¹s balance sheet. Supposedly this would lead
customers to be pursued vigorously, but the contrary was found to be
true with the oar companies. Marketing consists mainly of word of
mouth, with an occasional rowing magazine advertisement or regatta
demonstration. Dealers are used exclusively for international sales.
At DBC, this approach seems mostly the result of manpower shortages
and time constraints, while Alden covers their oar advertising needs
through boat sales. Concept II, however, is able to use this strategy
to the most benefit. As the U.S. market leader going in, they were
afforded close ties to their customers and were able to make extensive
use of field testing. Their credibility both as rowers and as
manufactures of the most popular Macon blade gave them greater access
to the market than would be expected in a tradition-rich environment.
As a result, their total sales have been steadily rising, with a local
peak in 1992 representing the Big Blade introduction, since they
opened their doors. Their efficient factory allows them to meet demand
quickly, an important factor back in 1992 when Big Blade orders
streamed in with high urgency. They also strived to extract the most
revenue from the market by offering a variety of options designed to
get more Big Blades into use. These included an $85 retrofit option in
which a new blade was attached to the customer¹s old shaft and a $60
do-it-yourself kit. During the Big Blade introduction period, Concept
II also agreed to ship invoices to accounts receivable until new
school budget were appropriated. Concept II sells the Big Blade at
$230 each for sweep oars and $350 per pair for sculls. Blades are
assembled to order, with over 7,500 possible combinations available.
Customer service is available by phone or by electronic mail, and an
owner¹s newsletter is published regularly. All of these factors
contribute to Concept II¹s tremendous reputation and devoted customer
following.
Despite their relative youth, DBC¹s workshop is currently operating
at capacity, a sure indication that something is being done right to
attract customers. Although their hatchet development was dramatically
simplified by virtue of replicating the Big Blade mold, DBC took
advantage of their second-mover status in a highly strategic manner.
Well-made composite rowing equipment will last for many years before
wearing out, and therefore manufacturers are unlikely to sell many
replacement units. In addition, since oars are a large investment for
a rowing program, incremental changes will be shunned if attempted too
soon after a major re-design that convinced customers to replace their
oar stock. Jim Dreher recognized Concept II¹s predicament in this
area: the Dreissigackers will be unable to sell new designs for some
time after convincing the market to switch to the Big Blade. To
work-around this, Dreher developed a replaceable blade system, in
which new blade designs can be inserted onto the existing shaft at
much lower cost than replacing the entire oar. By virtue of this
flexibility, and other features such as extra carbon fiber layers for
stiffness and an adjustable length handle, DBC considers themselves to
have a “premium product” and therefore commands prices of $275 each
for sweeps and $425 per pair for sculls. Even with an import tax of 25
percent, a good percentage of orders are sent overseas, mostly in
large volume that sells out inventory for a month or more. Recently, a
decision was made to take advantage of existing manufacturing
expertise and capital equipment by expanding the business into related
rowing equipment markets like riggers, seats, and footboards, all
produced by the same carbon fiber processes.
As was noted above, the majority of oars sold by Alden accompany
their boats. An extremely personal approach is taken towards each
sale, with the goal of establishing confidence in the salesman and the
product. This method fits well with the recreational market they
target. Potential customers are given on-land training in basic rowing
technique and then permitted to test-row the boats on a nearby
waterway. Most are happy to bring home a set of Deltor blades, with
the exception of those older people who used to row in college and
have “romantic memories” of rowing with the Macon shape. For them,
rowing means tradition, and so the most popular Alden blade is a
symmetrical wooden one. A pair of Alden oars sells for about $375,
midway between the Concept II and the DBC prices.
5.0 The Technology Trajectory of Oars
The cynical view of the hatchet blade¹s introduction is that the
market had become saturated with Macon blades, and therefore Concept
II needed something new in order to sell more oars. While the Big
Blade and its descendants have certainly been extremely profitable for
the companies involved, the switch to a completely new oar shape has
far deeper roots than this glib explanation suggests. Instead,
advances in oar technology can be mapped such that the transition from
the Macon to the hatchet delineates a switch in dominant design.
Rather than following the typical S-curve theory of development, the
technology trajectory of the oar industry approximates a step-function
(see exhibit 4). This bi-modal format represents an interaction
threshold between tradition and innovation. Advances in the commercial
oar industry in terms of design were for all intents stagnant in the
thirty years prior to the Big Blade. In eighty-odd years prior to
that, before oars were manufactured commercially, the spoon-shape
predominated, summing to over a century of symmetric blade use. This
stagnation was not due to lack of creativity or effort on the part of
manufacturers but rather the effect of heavy cultural resistance. The
weight of tradition acted to depress the S-curve shape into a flat
line representing a single dominant design. The longevity and high
cost of the product also eliminated potential for incremental
innovation between radical transitions, as evidenced by the lack of
interest in the Concept II delta blade, a variation on the Macon.
At its inception, rowing was a sport of the people, with wide
participation and competition at all levels. However, as public
attention shifted to sports like football, interest waned, and the
expense of maintaining crew shells and boathouse became a burden.
Rowing became a pastime of the rich, as evidenced by the manner in
which it flourished in the Ivy League schools. Overseas, especially in
England, rowing retained more widespread popularity, but the sport
took on a cultural luster, polished regularly by such high-brow events
as the Royal Henley Regatta. The very tools encourage a respect of
tradition, such as the custom of inscribing the names of legendary
club members on the bow of boats dedicated to them. Gradually, as
college education became more accessible, the sport opened up to a
more diverse population, and yet a bastion of tradition remains in
American rowing, part of which was the Macon blade. Tradition
translates into resistance to change and a slow-moving approach to
innovation. In order for a new design to succeed, several effects had
to act in concert to propel the market over the tradition threshold
towards acceptance of change. No one innovative force alone was
sufficient to overcome rowing¹s strong cultural resistance. When the
right combination of influences finally gelled, the switch to a new
design was swift and fervent, with an almost complete transition
taking place in just over six months from when the Big Blade entered
the market. These factors included improvements in manufacturing
technology, the timing of the innovation, psychological influence,
creative marketing, competitive interplay, and, most importantly,
spill-over innovations. The modernizing effects of each accumulated to
a critical mass that was able to leap the threshold and go against
tradition.
Improvements in materials and manufacturing technology facilitated
the use of hatchet-style shapes by increasing the strength of the oar
while simultaneously decreasing the weight (see exhibit 5 for a
description of the composite oar manufacturing process). Prior to the
invention of artificial composites, asymmetric blades made out of wood
would de-laminate due to the large torque stress. In addition, the
shortened inboard length that the Dreissigackers found to be so
crucial to the Big Blade¹s performance would have been impossibly
heavy if made in wood. Progress in materials technology was therefore
a necessary precursor to a feasible hatchet design. However, other
sports equipment such as golf clubs and fishing rods have been made
with composites since the 1940s, demonstrating that this advance alone
was not enough to unseat the Macon dominant design.
The timing of Concept II¹s innovation also proved fortuitous. The
“Dartmouth effect” came to be noticed mainly because Dartmouth had
never before fielded a winning crew. The team of 1991-92 was the
result of three years of heavy freshmen recruiting, now all of whom
had advanced to the varsity squad. Probably they would have done well
with Macon blades, but the rest of the rowing world chose to associate
their unsuspected strength with the visually different equipment they
happen to have been given at the same time. Rowing is an exceptionally
mental sport, and the psychological boost they received from the
intimidation of the other colleges most likely propelled them to more
victories than they would have done with Macons. The speed advantage
correlated with the Big Blade was consequently blown out of proportion
as other teams sought competitive equality. Now that hatchets are
widely used at all levels of collegiate rowing, the mystique remains
among the freshmen who are permitted to switch to hatchets only after
several months of learning with Macons, whether this be because their
school is financially unable to outfit all of the teams or because
their coaches believe in establishing technique with the more rigorous
oar.
Concept II¹s product launch demonstrated the creative marketing that
was needed to introduce a new concept to a stubborn audience. Whether
by careful planning or by happenstance, having a prototype set of oars
ready to use by the Head of the Charles was an inexpensive way to
reach a large percentage of the rowing population at one time. The
Head of the Charles is the largest single-day regatta in the world,
and rowers (and coaches, who often make the budget choices) come from
all over the country to compete and to view the latest products at the
demonstration booths. Any equipment variations among the competitors
are immediately noticed. Concept II followed up on this initial
exposure by sending out test blades on nation-wide tours to the top
rowing colleges. Although Dartmouth¹s success was necessary before the
hatchet became accepted as a better design, at least the market was
aware that an option existed and had time to digest the possibility of
change. The fact that 1992 was an Olympic year also speeded the
dispersion of the design within the international market.
Weak appropriability worked to increase the hatchet blade¹s
credibility in several ways. Concept II judges that many of their
competitors make exact copies of the Big Blade design, DBC being one
of them. The Dreissigackers decided not to try for patent protection
to prevent this for two reasons. First, the idea of an asymmetric
blade had been around for many years. In fact, the Praetzel company
claimed a patent for an asymmetrical design in 1939 but was not able
to put it into practical use with wood [Filter, 1992]. Concept II¹s
patent description for the Big Blade would have to have been so narrow
as to be easily circumvented. Although Martin did receive a patent for
the concept of a blade as a wing, he too decided against applying for
protection of his designs for the same reason. Second, if a patent had
been protected, the resultant monopoly would have certainly caused a
ban by rowing¹s international governing body. The lack of proprietary
designs, however, did not limit the competitive interplay between the
three manufacturers. Jim Dreher claims partial credit for spurring the
Dreissigackers towards a new oar shape due to the fact that DBC¹s
entrance into the market in 1989 began to impact Concept II¹s sculling
business. With his hatchet blade, Dreher plays off of the Big Blade¹s
popularity by offering his customers the option to retrofit Concept II
blades onto the interchangeable DBC shaft or to attach a DBC
adjustable handle to a Concept II shaft. Martin also sees the
influence of his work in the Big Blade, since the Deltor was released
two years prior. At the same time, he admits that his own sales were
helped out when the Concept II oar was introduced; someone else was
needed in the market to confirm his theories and to bolster confidence
in an asymmetrical design.
The final blow to the Macon dominant design was the introduction of
several other advances in rowing equipment that helped to overrun the
barriers to technological improvements. The first of these came in
1986, when Concept II premiered a second generation rowing ergometer
which included a computerized performance monitor. For the first time,
individual strength could be measured objectively without the
complicating factors of boat design, wind resistance, and river
currents found with on-the-water racing. Instead, the athlete was
measured against the clock and against a computer-calibrated scale.
Coaches became enamored with quantifiable measurements of their
athlete¹s progress, and a market for electronic gadgets was born. As
one of the rower interviewed stated, “The rowing community jumped on
the technology bandwagon.” The fact that the Dreissigackers used a
SpeedBOSS to justify their speed claims certainly served to increase
the credibility of the Big Blade and to bring an end to the Macon
tradition.
6.0 Conclusions
Concept II bowed to tradition by designing the Big Blade to feel the
same as the Macon. In doing so, they recognized that the aspect of
tradition worth conserving was the fluid motion of the rowing stroke.
With this in mind, they brought forth a new design that increased boat
speed within this parameter. The dominance of hatchet blades is now so
strong that no serious crew would consider racing without them.
Although only three years have passed since the introduction of the
Big Blade, it appears that hatchets are as strongly held in the
current rowing culture as Macons had been in years past. Only time
will tell if this remains true, but the new design appears to be much
more than a passing fancy. Indeed, in a market so imbued with
tradition, it is unlikely that fads could take hold at all. The impact
of most fads would fall under the threshold level needed to overcome
the cultural stronghold. Decisions to adopt new technology are taken
under such heavy consideration that the results tend to end up as
semi-permanent. Perhaps, however, the brief erosion of tradition
brought about by the switch will serve as a catalyst for future
innovations. This could reduce the time between step function
transitions. Nonetheless, there is little room for breakthrough
innovation in the industry, especially so soon after a change in
dominant design. The small size of the total rowing market also
provides a serious barrier to entry. The three oar companies are
therefore left to carry on their research as time and money allow
without much urgent need for closely managed development; the
longevity of the product eliminates the potential for much incremental
innovation between radical transitions. Concept II will probably
remain the market leader for the foreseeable future due to their
credibility and customer loyalty, but DBC may gradually take on
greater market share due to the attractiveness of their built-in
upgrade capability. This flexibility could prove tough competition for
Concept II if design transitions become more frequent. Alden will most
likely continue to meet the needs of its specialized clientele,
building a tradition of its own in the rough water segment.
Exhibit 1: The Macon Blade Exhibit 2: The Hatchet Blade (you all know
what these look like)
Exhibit 3: Blade Development at Alden Ocean Shells (chart of blade
shapes designed by Doug Martin over the past 20 years)
Exhibit 4: Technology Trajectory Models: S-Curve Trajectory Followed
by Many Technologies (source: Christensen, 1992); Step Function
Trajectory Found in the Oar Industry (couldn't get the figures to come
through, let me know if you truly need a copy)
Exhibit 5: The Oar Manufacturing Process This description was drawn
from conversations with Larry Gluckman, who provided a thorough tour
of the Concept II manufacturing facility. Steps in which the
procedures followed by DBC and/or Alden deviate from the Concept II
process are noted.
A. Make Shaft:
1. Flexible strips of “pre-preg” carbon fiber are wrapped tightly
around a steel cylindrical mandrel, followed by a layer of
“shrink-wrap.” [DBC adds a longitudinal layer on the front and back
(in the pulling direction) to increase the section modulus and thus
increase the shaft¹s stiffness. Alden uses two longitudinal C-sections
overlapped to form a tube. An inner plastic bladder is then inflated
within a mold to form the shaft shape.]
2. Cure overnight in oven.
3. Peel off wrap.
4. Test shaft for stiffness.
B. Make Blade:
5. Mold blank sheets of carbon fiber in hot press, with a “space
invader” foam core insert to leave room to insert the shaft.
6. Cure by cooling.
7. Test blade for stiffness.
8. Computer numerically controlled milling machine (able to store
multiple blade patterns, such as Macon and Big Blade) cuts out blade
shape. [DBC and Alden use pre-formed molds, then trim edges by sight.]
9. Edges buffed.
C. Make Handle:
0. Wooden handle is shaped on a lathe. [DBC offers the option of a
carbon handle.]
D. Assemble Oar:
11. Holes drilled on sleeve, collar, handle, and blade. Epoxy is then
forced in under pressure to assure a full bond.
12. Each oar is cleaned and re-checked to make sure that it matches
customer specifications. A serial number is added so the oar can be
permanently associated with that order.
13. Final test of whole oar with “the Monster,” a device which bends
the shaft and blade far past normal rowing force [Concept II only].
The blade is also submerged in water to test for leaks.
14. Oars are boxed for shipment.
At Concept II: order receipt to ship = 8 working days.
References
“1993 World Championship Results,” FISA Coach, Federation
Internationale des Societes d¹Aviron, Volume 4, Number 4, Fall 1993.
Cecil, Owen, “Sculling Oar Test: Wood Sculling Oars,” Small Boat
Journal, Number 48, April/May 1986.
Christensen, Clayton, “Exploring the Limits of the Technology S-Curve.
Part I: Component Technologies,” Production and Operations Management,
Volume 1, Number 4, Fall 1992.
Dreissigacker, Dick and Peter, “New on the Scene - The Big Blades,”
FISA Coach, Volume 3, Number 2, Spring 1992.
Filter, Klaus, “From a Total of 198 Crews in Banyoles, 101 Rowed with
the so-called “Hatchet” Blades,” FISA Coach, Federation Internationale
des Societes d¹Aviron, Volume 3, Number 3, Summer 1992.
b“Letters,” FISA Coach, Federation Internationale des Societes
d¹Aviron, Volume 3, Number 4, Fall 1992.
Nolte, Volker, “Do You Need Hatchets to Chop Your Water?”, American
Rowing, July/August 1993.
Carl Douglas
> Carl,
>
>
> We all know that snake oil, by definition, is a worthless preparation fraudulently peddled as a cure. But Martijn, in introducing the idea of the placebo effect, introduces a difficult issue. I have never met a physician who completely discounts the placebo effect. We may not understand the role belief plays in medical cures, and we may feel uncomfortable when it is introduced, but we cannot discount it.
>
> Having said this, I think it important to point out just how large is the question this leads to.
>
>
> Freedom of belief has been, is, and most likely will continue to be among these rights.
>
> Would you deny us this right? Or yourself?
>
> Whatever your answer, I think you will find that when you think hard about this question you will see that it begs an even more important question, namely, is this right absolute?
>
>
> To put the matter into the context of this discussion, let�s consider one of my favorite examples, Christian Science. When an adult decides on the basis of religious belief to decline treatment for a child, does the state have a right to abridge the adult�s right to freedom of belief?
>
> In the interest of full disclosure, I have to admit that a long time ago I answered for myself the Christian Science question. Yes, indeed, as the guarantor of �life, liberty, and the pursuit to happiness,� the state is obligated to interfere on behalf of the child.
>
> But conflicts of rights are never easy questions. Whenever I count of own votes they are seldom unanimous.
>
>
> By the way, here is an interesting question about science and reason. I think you would call it a thought question. Say we could construct machines that could think and learn for themselves, and that said machines could do so with flawless logic. Would these machines all arrive at the same conclusions?
>
>
> Cordially,
>
> Charles
In reply to the serious thoughts of Tinus & Charles:
Shows how carefully one needs to tread, even on the toes of reasonable
guys like you two, not to raise the ghost of religious dispute :( But I
didn't do that.
I'm happy for anyone to believe whatever they wish, & I respect that.
Certain beliefs have wonderful rules for the more orderly & contented
existence of peoples - such as to love your neighbour as you love
yourself. I am very unhappy when A pushes his beliefs down the throat
of B. And it goes beyond every pale when A attacks B, & all B's family,
& maybe B's nation, for holding the "wrong" beliefs. Similarly when it
is considered better (taking Charles' comments) for A's kid to die
rather than receive proven medical treatment. Sadly, every one of these
abominations happens daily & is perpetrated by some of the seemingly
nicest of folk.
So shall we leave faith matter to those who think themselves expert or
gifted in such matters?
I raised, in passing, the spectre of Voodoo as a seemingly
non-benevolent belief system, deeply implausible to those not ensnared
within it & apparently deeply damaging to a society within which it
propagates. And I dealt then with snake oil. Tinus thinks a little
snake oil does no harm & directs us to the placebo effect. In fact he
directs us to the joy of using something that tickles our fancy. And I
agree with that wholeheartedly.
What I can't accept is deliberate deception for commercial advantage
using the advanced psychological procedures now implicit in product
promotion. We've seen outrageous lies used to promote commonplace
products, even in rowing (recall the promises from the infant Carbocraft
that their eights would weight only 56kg). I think we all need
accessible reality checks if we are not to be cruelly bamboozled by
false promises in areas where we have no technical competence to judge
such claims. The wholly nonsensical Ion-Loop promotion is just such a
case - seemingly scientific words used in plausible-sounding but utterly
worthless & deliberately confusing ways.
Sometimes this trickery gets truly dangerous to life:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8476381.stm
At other times it is dangerous to wealth, health or peace of mind.
Always it is theft. Are some sorts of theft OK because they happen to
amuse those who don't fall for that particular scam?
I think not. I don't enjoy seeing folk fall down holes in the road.
Isn't it better that we try to inform each other of the pitfalls rather
than suggest that doing so smacks of the nanny state? Better to be
questioning than complaisant. Isn't that a big part of what RSR is about?
Simon
their money on whatever they want to spend it on, for whatever purpose
they wish. What I do have a problem with is manufacturers and
retailers miss-selling products by making false claims about their
efficacy; especially where their claims are scientifically implausible
and unproven. No-one can be well informed in all areas of science and
we have to rely on the scientific consensus and the actions of
regulators to inform us in the case of dodgy claims. It helps to keep
in mind the excellent advice that "extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence" as the great Carl Sagan once said. It
impoverishes us all to think that silly claims don't matter and we
should let people happily and ignorantly swan along under the guise of
the placebo, allowing silly claims to lie unchallenged. We should be
proud of the scientific understanding we have of our world and spread
this through society, not unquestioning gullibility.
As far as the placebo effect goes, this is a very questionable
argument. I don't think you can claim that wearing something you think
will make you perform better will actually result in you performing
better (or not wearing your lucky charm will result in a poorer
performance). I do see the plausibility of such an argument in that
your psychological state of mind may be better and confidence
heightened by your ion ring or whatever but when a company markets a
device as being beneficial to your performance, I think most
purchasers would simply "try it" and observe if it works. Of course no-
one would be able to make a realistic judgement of whether it has
worked for them or not: hence the need for some evidence (though
perhaps not worth testing in the case of these very implausible
claims). There is a very interesting article on the placebo effect by
Mark Crislip (an infectious diseases doctor), which you can find here:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/? p=158. This of course is more
relevant to the medical world but this is from where we are mostly
familiar with the term placebo effect and it turns out it doesn't seem
to have much effect at all - except for the reporting of wellbeing
(but not actual, measurable health or wellbeing).
Anyway, sorry to have taken this discussion off track again (though I
have bitten my proverbial lip on the subject of religion). One last
thing Carl - there is an "anti-Wikipedia" just as you request:
http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Main_Page They appear to be having a
major server move at the moment (the site has grown a lot) and have no
pages to view but I think you will find it a very enjoyable site when
its back on-line.
ledge
>
> Be handy to have an anti-Wikipedia - dedicated to exposing all the
> ludicrous anti-scientific claims so deeply embedded in urban mythology?
> Perhaps there is?
>
Sadly I can't fine any mention of magic bracelets (yet) but www.snopes.com
is always a good de-bunker of urban myths and scams in general
Jim Dwyer
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/Friends-of-Springbank-Dam/134393396623944
We have been without water to row on since 2006 because the newly
constructed dam malfunctioned before the dam was put into service.
Here is an article from Rowing News about the dam:
Any and all comments would be appreciated. Especially those that have rowed
or race on the Thames River in London Ontario.
Thanks
Jim
Tinus
> ...I raised, in passing, the spectre of Voodoo as a seemingly
> non-benevolent belief system, deeply implausible to those not ensnared
> within it & apparently deeply damaging to a society within which it
> propagates. And I dealt then with snake oil. Tinus thinks a little
> snake oil does no harm & directs us to the placebo effect. In fact he
> directs us to the joy of using something that tickles our fancy. And I
> agree with that wholeheartedly.
>
> What I can't accept is deliberate deception for commercial advantage
> using the advanced psychological procedures now implicit in product
Charles described the matter as being a difficult issue. I guess we
all broadly agree with each other and just look from slightly
different angles at the same object. Replacing deception with fraud or
swindle when it has a more negative connotation might be a helpful way
to highlight the differences in point of view. The subject still
remains unclear but maybe definitions like these must remain unsettled
or under continuous (re-)investigation, ethics is dead.
However, the main point which I wanted to address is not so much the
ethics of deception/fraud which is highly debatable and subjective.
I'd mainly liked to show that the rationalistic focus in which we
often/mainly investigate the use of superstitious believes is narrow
minded and limited (or boldly, it is erroneous). It is very attractive
to attack the mechanism of the false claims, but especially
rationalistic logic should deny the short-cut from false mechanism to
fraudulent or bad mechanism. To speak in terms of Feyerabend's
philosophy: "The only absolute truth is that there is no absolute
truth”. Whether we like it or not, irrationality may be very fruitful
(or at least is has been).
When being surrounded by like-minded sceptical souls I sometimes get
bored by the 'preaching to the own choir' and irrational believes are
too easily dismissed. The discussions, or better conversations, do not
result into much originality. Like-minded people simply agree and
opponents are simply considered illogical. The great void of rational
thought in the large (endless) field of folklore and superstition
makes it a very interesting and amusing endeavour because it is
largely unexplored terrain.
zeke_hoskin
ATP
"Carl Douglas" <ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8s4ku7...@mid.individual.net...
>
> So, would you say that Voodoo has not had severely damaging consequences
> over a very long time for the people of Haiti? And would the consequences
> of the ghastly earthquake have been anything like so severe but for the
> deadly mix of Voodoo, corruption, gang warfare, dictatorship, economic
> depression & hopelessness? And would you say that religious zealotry,
> including that dressed up under various -isms such as, but far from
> exclusively, communism, has not done immense harm, driving out much of the
> potential good intentions from which maybe they sprang?
>
In the United States, we have government funding available for those zealots
to engage in "faith based initiatives".
Richard du P
> "Carl Douglas" <c...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
In the United Kingdom we encourage, and subsidise, them to set up free
schools .....
Richard du P
Kit
@Carl
And would the consequences
> > > of the ghastly earthquake have been anything like so severe but for the
> > > deadly mix of Voodoo, corruption, gang warfare, dictatorship, economic
> > > depression & hopelessness?
Take Voodoo out of the mix. What's left? Any better?
@ATP / Richard
If it is the zealotry that inspires them to set up their "faith-based
initiatives" or free schools, I assume then that the rational
scientists are uninterested in such works.
Not wanting to denigrate your arguments too much (being a generally
rational sort of chap), but it seems the generalisations being used
here are as wide of the target as any zealot would concoct.
FWIW, I believe many people are motivated by the self-worth that comes
from being part of an ideological following. Excessive, "zealous"
promotion of an ideology increases that self-worth, as the popularity
of the ideology increases. And this can apply just as much to the
rational as well as the irrational among us.
PS. wonder what TalkRowing are discussing at the moment ? ;)
Carl Douglas
> On Feb 17, 4:58 pm, Tinus<martijn.weteri...@wur.nl> wrote:
>> On Feb 17, 9:07 pm, Carl Douglas<c...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> ...I raised, in passing, the spectre of Voodoo as a seemingly
>>> non-benevolent belief system, deeply implausible to those not ensnared
>>> propagates. And I dealt then with snake oil. Tinus thinks a little
As should large volumes of self-doubt ;)
Tinus, I know very little of the works of the good Dr Feyerabend, but I
would not accept the implication that what we may want to believe is of
equal validity to those matters for which folk have built extensive &
verifiable theory. Otherwise we're justifying the ultimate in
woolly-minded twee-ness.
Equally, there are perhaps no absolute truths. And history tells us
that any guy who tells us he has the final solution is mad, bad &
dangerous. However, some "truths" are so solid as to be (as in law, but
with far greater accuracy) beyond all reasonable doubt. These are
theories which no tests have ever been able challenge & which are of
immense use in the design & manufacture of all manner of things, or in
the explanation of physical & chemical phenomena. Among such truths, or
shall we say established sciences?, are the fundamentals of fluid
dynamics, hydrostatics, materials & structural engineering, &
mathematics, - all of direct relevance (if we use them for design &
analysis rather than work in evolutionary fashion by guess-cut-&-try) to
the construction & performance, propulsion & control of rowing shells.
Nothing within the mass of established science allows the least grounds
to suppose that water can see the difference between a carbon/epoxy, a
glass/polyester, a wood/Kevlar/epoxy, or a wood/nails/shellac hull of
fixed dimensions & stiffness. Nor that paint colour has any
hydrodynamic merit. But we do know that interfacial chemistry, fluid
modification & certain types of surface texture can alter the fluid drag
- so modifications of that kind are ruled illegal within the sport.
None of which means that believing your beautiful wood/composite shell -
with elegant & highly functional riggers, excellent hull-form & great
structural stiffness - to be really fast won't give you that extra
element of confidence needed for you to go faster still :)
But it is the underlying, underpinning science which puts you into that
dominant position. Thus, intelligently-designed steering systems allow
your cox to keep the boat from wandering, thus reducing the parasitic
drag due to spending time not pointing exactly the way you are going -
something which no amount of bullshit & imitation can give you.
Carl Douglas
> On Feb 18, 1:41 pm, Richard du P<rdupa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 18, 12:16 pm, "ATP"<walter_mun...@unforgiven.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Carl Douglas"<c...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>>> news:8s4ku7...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>>> So, would you say that Voodoo has not had severely damaging consequences
>>>> over a very long time for the people of Haiti? And would the consequences
>>>> of the ghastly earthquake have been anything like so severe but for the
>>>> deadly mix of Voodoo, corruption, gang warfare, dictatorship, economic
>>>> including that dressed up under various -isms such as, but far from
>>>> exclusively, communism, has not done immense harm, driving out much of the
>>>> potential good intentions from which maybe they sprang?
>>
>>> In the United States, we have government funding available for those zealots
>>> to engage in "faith based initiatives".
>>
>> In the United Kingdom we encourage, and subsidise, them to set up free
>> schools .....
>>
>> Richard du P
Which, of course, ensures their pupils understand that, e.g., evolution
is "only a theory" & that they are, without question, morally superior
to those with funny hats at the school down the road. We still have
this cancer of educational & community segregation in NI, the last
upflaring of which cost nearly 4000, mostly innocent, lives. But the
great St. Blair of Baghdad likes it so.
>
> @Carl
> And would the consequences
>>>> of the ghastly earthquake have been anything like so severe but for the
>>>> deadly mix of Voodoo, corruption, gang warfare, dictatorship, economic
>>>> depression& hopelessness?
> Take Voodoo out of the mix. What's left? Any better?
Could it have been much worse. Adherence to Voodoo in Haiti rendered
its people gullible & so easily manipulated by the despotic, corrupt
Duvaliers. It enabled them to build & control their thuggish tontons
macoutes, through whom they held the country in thrall. The remnants of
those people are behind so much of the gratuitous violence which has
continues to plague Haiti since the the departure of Baby Doc. And all
this kept the country poor, & devastated its ecology, while the endemic
corruption enabled all manner of abuses, including the jerry-building &
lack of effective infrastructures which directly helped kill 200,000 in
the earthquake. FWIW, deaths in earthquakes & other natural disasters
are massively higher, in proportion the the scale of the event, in
impoverished & corrupt nations for just this reason.
>
> @ATP / Richard
> If it is the zealotry that inspires them to set up their "faith-based
> initiatives" or free schools, I assume then that the rational
> scientists are uninterested in such works.
>
> Not wanting to denigrate your arguments too much (being a generally
> rational sort of chap), but it seems the generalisations being used
> here are as wide of the target as any zealot would concoct.
> FWIW, I believe many people are motivated by the self-worth that comes
> from being part of an ideological following. Excessive, "zealous"
> promotion of an ideology increases that self-worth, as the popularity
> of the ideology increases. And this can apply just as much to the
> rational as well as the irrational among us.
>
> PS. wonder what TalkRowing are discussing at the moment ? ;)
Perhaps they're in erudite discussion of the key question, "Why has RSR
gone quietly off its rocker?"
;)
Charles Carroll
> but I
> would not accept the implication that what we may want to believe is
> of
> equal validity
Carl,
And therein, it seems to me, is the heart of the matter.
On this side of the pond, and I suspect in the UK also, citizens (or
subjects) have an unalienable right to freedom of speech and our
government is the protector of this right. But what many people seem
not to appreciate is that our right to freedom of speech in no way
addresses the validity of our speech. The right to speak freely and
the validity of what we have to say are two entirely different
concerns.
This is a simple point. In no way should it have to be spelled out.
Yet I have lost count of the times people have argued with me
otherwise.
Freedom of speech, however we might wish it so, does not automatically
bestow on the speaker an ability to follow a related sequence of
thought. Yet it would seem that it is in the nature of egalitarian
societies for people to confound freedom of speech with the notion
that everyone’s opinion is equally valid.
Warmest regards,
Charles
sully
wrote:
> Carl,
>
> When you equate "religious zealotry" with "snake oil" you cross into dangerous territory. One man’s “religious zealotry” is another man’s cherished belief.
>
> We all know that snake oil, by definition, is a worthless preparation fraudulently peddled as a cure. But Martijn, in introducing the idea of the placebo effect, introduces a difficult issue. I have never met a physician who completely discounts the placebo effect. We may not understand the role belief plays in medical cures, and we may feel uncomfortable when it is introduced, but we cannot discount it.
>
Interesting discussion this has generated!
For years I've been trying to understand the relationship between
faith and reason,
we're evolved for both. If I define "faith" as believe in things we
lack evidence for,
in many ways "faith" is what mostly makes us human. I think most
of what we
believe to be rational thought and reason is actually post-hoc
rationalization. We
act upon our emotional reaction unwittingly, and construct the
rationale afterward.
I don't think we recognize our decision until the rationale is
constructed, thus we believe we thought our way to a rational
decision.
Indeed, observe our behaviors during conflicting viewpoints. To
open up an opponents mind often seems to require an emotional
stimulus, persuasion or
a compliment, and certain words or terms seem to trigger an
emotional response that closes minds.
This doesn't mean that we are unable to reason our way to a choice,
we certainly are, but it requires us to manipulate our emotions to do
so,
or to have choices that offer roughly equal emotional attachments.
A good example is this rowing myth thread. At one point, I
repeated a long
held belief of mine, gathered from years back talking to wooden boat
builders
that wood products are inferior these days compared to 40 years ago.
Carl disputed that. What caused me to question my own beliefs was
not
the power of his argument, but his authority as a long-time wooden
boat builder.
Furthermore, there are ways Carl could have disputed my claim that
could have
caused me not to question it. He was assertive and explanatory, but
not rude
or dismissive. Whether or not Carl was right, his ability to cause
me to question
my beliefs first depended upon an emotional response (response to
authority, a reasoned tone) where a different response may have
engendered a closed
mind on my part (oh he's just a ranting fool)...
Emotional reactions are quite complex, so there are exceptions for
every seeming rule.
Where this relates to rowing is whether we row or we coach, we tread
along
a familiar ground, a path that is comfortable, that feels right. A
disastrous race will cause us to re-think our methods, or
disagreement from authority that seems reasonable to us.
sully
wrote:
> > Tinus, I know very little of the works of the good Dr Feyerabend,
> > but I
> > would not accept the implication that what we may want to believe is
> > of
> > equal validity
>
> Carl,
>
> And therein, it seems to me, is the heart of the matter.
>
> On this side of the pond, and I suspect in the UK also, citizens (or
> subjects) have an unalienable right to freedom of speech and our
> government is the protector of this right. But what many people seem
> not to appreciate is that our right to freedom of speech in no way
> addresses the validity of our speech. The right to speak freely and
> the validity of what we have to say are two entirely different
> concerns.
>
> This is a simple point. In no way should it have to be spelled out.
> Yet I have lost count of the times people have argued with me
> otherwise.
One of the great myths we deal with is the notion of "two sides to
every story".
There isn't. As mentioned before, there is a reality, there's a
real live truth out there somewhere, and we use our senses,
intelligence, reason, tools we can construct, etc, to try to
understand and explain it.
Some methods are superior than others at getting close to
understanding/explaining reality. The process of science is the most
useful tool yet.
Andrew B
effect, I'm reminded of my favorite reason against blind wine
tastings. I want to know what the wine tastes like when I can see the
label. Not sure if that applies to the appearance of my equipment.
Carl Douglas
Regrettably, the right to freedom of speech is severely curtailed in the
UK by draconian libel laws which can be used by people with maybe few
principles but long pockets to suppress the dissemination of information
which it would truly be in the public interest to see published. As a
result, London is the libel litigation capital of the world.
Look up the name Trafigura. You will discover outrageous conduct by a
company which allegedly dumped poisonous materials in Cote d'Ivoire
after inept shipboard re-processing (because no reputable 1st-world
company on-shore would process them at a cost acceptable to these
people). This was followed by the application of a so-called
super-injunction in the courts here, aimed at preventing anyone, even
members of parliament, from hearing or mentioning what had been going on.
Please note that our MPs are protected by Parliamentary Privilege - they
cannot be sued & in theory cannot be gagged in what they say within our
parliament. Yet this company's lawyers almost succeeded in gagging
Parliament. And the wonder of the super-injunction process is that the
very existence of any super-injunction is supposed, by law, to be secret.
There's the interesting situation that, say, a US company aggrieved at
the exposure of the possible hazards to patient health of a medical
device or treatment can use the fact that a US publication may appear on
the Internet to claim its publication in the UK & thereby initiate libel
litigation against its author. And note that damages for false
prosecution in libel actions are rather hard to obtain.
Folk who get overly comfortable in their ignorance of the less
attractive activities of governments & the rich & powerful, & then rant
at the actions of such as Wikileaks, & even incite murder of individuals
therein (permitted apparently under US law), could do well to learn that
many grievous abuses have only come to light because whistleblowers
(who, as we know, get the shortest of shrift in the normal way) were
able to publish factual information through such media.
There are increasing pressures to reform English libel law, which
uniquely places the onus of proof on the defendant (& we can discuss the
difficulty of proving a negative - when did you stop beating your wife?
- at some other time) & very much circumscribe the grounds on which a
defendant may plead proper justification. Don't expect any rush in this
matter - too many people with the ears of legislators get a fine living
from the system as it now operates.
Note too that the perils of a libel defendant can be greatly increased
by the oddities of senior judges. Search jointly on the names of Simon
Singh, a distinguished UK academic & author, & Justice Eady, & view the
Wikipedia page on Simon Lehna Singh, for a real eye-opener. Note that
the BCA chose to attack Singh, but not the newspaper which had published
his "offending" words. Whereas Singh had limited resources for his own
defence which might in the normal way have been expected to make him
buckle & settle on grovelling terms, the Guardian was too well funded to
risk challenging & a fine reputation for resisting & winning such
actions (see the libel cases brought by a) Elton John & b) Jonathan
Aitken (who then did time for perjury as a result of his nearly
successful efforts to lie his way to victory)).
So, speaking freely & with complete honesty may expose a UK citizen to
legally-sanctioned attack, not only from within but from any affluent
gent (or crook) from anywhere in the world. And it has been notable how
many such attacks in London courts on UK citizens have been launched by
well-padded corporations based in the Land of the Free. Libel defences
are horrendously expensive. This has increasingly cowed editors of,
e.g., respectable scientific journals into not publishing articles which
even hint at the deliberate suppression of data, etc. Libel litigation
is strictly the tool of the well-resourced against the honest but poorer
guy. And it works under the implicit assumption that a rich man feels
more pain than the poor man & needs a correspondingly needs greater
financial compensation to take it away. Charles Dickens should be alive
today to write about this bent system.
The direct result of English libel laws is that the honest are easily
suppressed (study the use of libel litigation by the late, unlamented
Robert Maxwell), & that people are destroyed & do even die for the
financial benefit of the venal & corrupt.
Jim Dwyer
We have been without water since 2006 because the newly constructed dam
malfunctioned before the dam was put into service.
Here is an article from Rowing News about the dam:
Please support this face book page:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/Friends-of-Springbank-Dam/134393396623944
Any and all comments would be welcomed and appreciated.
Jim
Jim Dwyer
"Jim Dwyer" wrote in message
news:ijp2q7$pnk$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Jim Dwyer
dam
malfunctioned before it was put into service.
Here is an article from Rowing News about the dam:
Please support this face book page:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/Friends-of-Springbank-Dam/134393396623944
Any and all comments would be welcomed and appreciated.
Thanks
Jim
Jim Dwyer
dam
malfunctioned before it was put into service.
Here is an article from Rowing News about the dam:
Please support this face book page:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/Friends-of-Springbank-Dam/134393396623944
Any and all comments would be welcomed and appreciated.
Thanks
Jim