Sims vs Aylings vs Empacher vs Janousek
Jon
Carl Douglas (row...@rowing-cdrs.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Properly designed & built, a Kevlar/wood laminated boat starts stiffer,
: has superior impact and puncture resistance, and maintains its stiffness
: long after most "plastics" boats soften or start cracking. We, and our
: clients, know that.
We have a wooden-framed boat from Sims, that is one of the first they ever
made, and although it is 12 years old, theoretically it should be a lot
slower than it actually is. Incidentally, I took out a brand new Sims
lightweight boat a couple of days ago and the steering was pretty damn
good. The crew seemed to like the boat too, and they were good enough to
know the difference.
: Sure, it takes a more skill to make a Kevlar/wood true composite boat -
: otherwise you'd see more around. But they don't cost much more than
: "plastic" products (and still cost less than some). And then if you
: compare the value for money ....
Could you explain the difference between Kevlar/Wood and 'Plastic'?
: >viva la difference say I, so we keep a choice.
: Yesssss!
I wholeheartedly agree.
: Let's see purchase decisions based on logic, not fashion. Coaches will
: seat-race their squads into the ground but rarely apply similar tests to
: the equipment (blades, boats, riggers, etc) on which success also
: depends.
Hmmm...sometimes. My last coach took account of blades used in racing off
people, and here we are aware of the better catch given by a smoothie
blade. Even if they do rip your hands to pieces...
: And the kit used by heavily sponsored winners of this or that event may
: not, actually, be the fastest available - either for them or for you.
I always wondered about that...
: Of course, I could be a bit biased?!
Eh? Surely not... ;-)
Maybe we could ask Richard Ayling to give his feelings on the subject
too. But he might be a bit biased too, you never know...
*grin*
Jon
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
j...@durge.org
http://www.durge.org/~jon/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Douglas
In article <64ps9v$q7v$1...@fof.durge.org>, Jon <j...@durge.org> writes
>
>: Sure, it takes a more skill to make a Kevlar/wood true composite boat -
>: otherwise you'd see more around. But they don't cost much more than
>: "plastic" products (and still cost less than some). And then if you
>: compare the value for money ....
>
>Could you explain the difference between Kevlar/Wood and 'Plastic'?
>
Certainly, Jon, I'll try:
Actually the term "plastic" was already in use in this thread. It's
widely (perhaps wrongly) used in rowing when rowers compare wood-based
structures with other, wood-free, laminates. So I followed suit.
In our technique the proportion of wood (as veneers) to Kevlar is
between 5-to-1 and 3-to-1, the remainder being an epoxy resin. We mould
and cure the laminate under heat & pressure.
In wood-free laminates a foam or honeycomb core maintains a connection
and spacing between the two thin cloth skins. This makes the skin
stiffer against buckling & indentation but, the core being made up of
thin-walled air-cells, can make it vulnerable to perforation & tearing.
Such cores also have minimal mechanical properties in directions
parallel to their surfaces and thus contribute nothing additional to the
boat's vital longitudinal stiffness & strength.
The wood in Kevlar/wood laminates is a "live" core. Not only does it do
the job of the foam or honeycomb core (above). Its fibres also make a
major contribution to the essential longitudinal reinforcement of the
boat, giving exceptional stiffness without weight penalty. The wood's
resilience also greatly enhances the shell's impact & perforation
resistance.
Wood has been under continuous development & refinement for 400,000
years, and for the same sorts of steady and cyclic stresses that boats
need to resist. Used intelligently, it has much to contribute.
I hope this treatise informs without boring ;-).
Carl Douglas
Carl Douglas Racing Shells
The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JZ, Great Britain
URL http://www.rowing-cdrs.demon.co.uk TEL +44 (0) 1784-456344
E-mail carld...@rowing-cdrs.demon.co.uk FAX +44 (0) 1784-466550
Jon
Carl Douglas (row...@rowing-cdrs.demon.co.uk) wrote:
:
: I hope this treatise informs without boring ;-).
Well it was certainly better than the quote I saw once :
'If God had meant us to build boats from carbon fibre, He'd have built carbon fibre trees."
It pretty much makes sense, but then if that technique is *good*, why do other manufacturers use other techniques?
Surely they cannot all be completely wrong?
Also, is it true that after a year of good use by rowers, a boat slows down enough to make half a length's difference
over the Henley course?
Would there be a way round this, without shelling out (sorry, couldn't resist that one) for a new boat every year?
Jon the ever-curious
Carl Douglas
In article <64qie7$3ft$1...@fof.durge.org>, Jon <j...@durge.org> writes
>Carl Douglas (row...@rowing-cdrs.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>:
>: I hope this treatise informs without boring ;-).
>
>Well it was certainly better than the quote I saw once :
>'If God had meant us to build boats from carbon fibre, He'd have built carbon
>fibre trees."
>It pretty much makes sense, but then if that technique is *good*, why do other
>manufacturers use other techniques?
>Surely they cannot all be completely wrong?
or with less skill. Hyping use of so-called "space-age" materials may
sell more boats - and sideline makers of equal or better products made
in less "sexy" materials.
The problem, always, is to tell hype from merit. For that you must
test.
The worst overhype in rowing was Carbocraft. For a year an uncritical
UK press promoted their flop-copied Karlisch & Stampfli clones as being
"unfairly light". When we made the press weigh them they found Carbo
hulls weighed the same as those they'd copied, and more than others!
Carbo Mk1 went bust that year. Carbo Mk2 sank a couple of years later.
>Also, is it true that after a year of good use by rowers, a boat slows down
>enough to make half a length's difference
>over the Henley course?
>Would there be a way round this, without shelling out (sorry, couldn't resist
>that one) for a new boat every year?
For an VIII you're proposing a 0.4% loss in speed - an increase in power
absorbtion of 1.2% - from deteriorating structure or gain in weight
through water absorbtion? If the boat absorbs water it should go back
to its maker. If riggers or shoulders start softening or twisting,
which could shake confidence & reduce crew power by that amount, go back
to the maker. And if the boat itself softens enough to cause that loss
there's a terminal structural problem.
Strangely, I've heard a reputed builder tell a potential client "this is
an out-&-out racing machine, so it is only good for a couple of years".
What a rip-off! One of our doubles won World bronze in 82, won Henley
Royal in 84 and made the Olympic final in 86. It's still a fine boat
today. That's what we expect, and even more so from our current
production.
The answer, in all cases, would be to weigh & test the boat mechanically
when new and at regular intervals thereafter. But I've not known users
do that.
PS I'd meant to say trees had been under R&D for 400 _million_ years!
BilMcGowan
I think I rowed in one of those 400,000-year-old wooden boats at Assumption
College back in '85. To the best of my knowledge, it's still there too.
Have to bring out the carbon-14 dating methods to verify.
"In Empacher, GOLD"
Bill McGowan
EMPACHER-USA
Sales, Parts & Service
5 Gerrish Street
Brighton, MA 02135-1704 USA
Office Phone & FAX: 001.617.787.1177
Home Phone 001.617.254-3233
website: EMPACHER.com
John Clayton
In article <19971118220...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, BilMcGowan
<bilmc...@aol.com> writes
>I think I rowed in one of those 400,000-year-old wooden boats at Assumption
> College back in '85. To the best of my knowledge, it's still there too.
> Have to bring out the carbon-14 dating methods to verify.
>
>
> "In Empacher,
>GOLD"
>Bill McGowan
>EMPACHER-USA
>Sales, Parts & Service
While you are at it- Why are Empachers so expensive?
Are they any good anyway? Don’t tell me how many medals they win tell me
why they are any better than other boats and how well they last and how
easy it is to repair them, because currently I am not convinced they are
worth the extra Ł or $.
Gniwor only way to go.
John
Jon
BilMcGowan (bilmc...@aol.com) wrote:
: I'm sorry I can't reveal any additional trade secrets that would definatively
: answer your question about WHY Empachers are so darn good. Just try one out
: and, hopefully, you'll understand.
And you're not biased at all, either, are you? ;-)
Very much like Carl Douglas, in fact. :-)
Actually - I spoke to a guy who makes boats for Eton Phoenix, and he says that the reason he does not use wood is
because it expands and contracts at different rates that the other matrials you use with it with heat and cold etc.
He also said that a lot of people use the same boat again and again because they were used to them. Hence people use
Janouseks or Empachers because the last nine boats they bought were all from the same manufacturer. I guess Empachers
ARE a proven brand ie. they can't be that bad if so many people use them at international level. They only way to see is
to seat race boats, and record times, I guess.
I have used an Empacher coxed four, which won the Britannia cup at Henley in 1996. Some people who have used it say it
is okay, but others say it is ont so good. I can say this : the rudder is hardly effective at all, which is good for
some rivers (and regattas, of course) but on the Thames near Oxford it is a bit of a handful because you simply can't
get round the corners. Also, it seems to have been made for coxes who are 3 inches taller than me - and I considered
myself quite tall for a cox anyway.
Cheers
Jon
Anna Poole
You may be interested to know (well it makes for a good story anyway) that
our Dean here, who does not know much about rowing, watched the Olypics
and noticed that on the whole the yellow boats won...
The result for our boatclub? The dear man had our ist VIII boat (an
Aylings) painted yellow!
I don't think it made any difference to the speed....
Anna.
Carl Douglas
Jon <j...@durge.org> wrote:
>
>Actually - I spoke to a guy who makes boats for Eton Phoenix, and he says that
>the reason he does not use wood is
>because it expands and contracts at different rates that the other matrials you
>use with it with heat and cold etc.
Jon, I hate to offend, but should I laugh or cry over "the guy's"
ignorance?
When building a ship, airframe, engine, rocket, racing car, racing
shell.... you _always_ combine materials with dissimilar physical
properties. It is the engineer's technical expertise with materials
which ensures the product will benefit, not suffer, from this diversity.
And in our boats the combinations we use are entirely beneficial. In
fact they are great. Just ask our clients (all of whom paid to own
them).
This "guy" should remember that his Eton Phoenix boats have the widest
mix of material physical properties (including coefficients of thermal
expansion) within their own laminates, including:
PVC foam (v. high exp. coeff, v. low strength, v. low elastic modulus)
Glass (low exp. coeff., high strength, good modulus)
Carbon (_zero_, yes zero, exp. coeff., v. high strength, v. high
modulus, but low impact resistance)
Epoxy resin (high exp. coeff., rel. low strength, low modulus)
Plus paint, etc., plus steel, wood, aluminium, etc.
So what is he going on about? Does he still think dissimilar materials
make unsound laminates?
If he knows anything (?) then he knows we've been building our
Kevlar/epoxy/wood laminate shells consistently, with perfect success,
for very many years. He should salute our success rather than
criticise, on pretend-technical grounds, what he doesn't understand?
Sorry to be so sharp over this, and no blame on you Jon. But the honest
& only decent way to sell a product is to promote it on its merits. One
should never stoop to inventing imaginary defects in the products of
your well-regarded competition.
john
In article <659v84$lsm$1...@fof.durge.org>, Jon <j...@durge.org> writes
>
>Actually - I spoke to a guy who makes boats for Eton Phoenix, and he says that
>the reason he does not use wood is
>because it expands and contracts at different rates that the other matrials you
>use with it with heat and cold etc.
>
laminate to me or am I wrong??
>He also said that a lot of people use the same boat again and again because they
>were used to them. Hence people use
>Janouseks or Empachers because the last nine boats they bought were all from the
>same manufacturer.
And why should they not go back to a proven manufacturer. However, those
of use over 40 will remember when Janos started that goes to show that
some good products can break into the market.
>I guess Empachers
>ARE a proven brand ie. they can't be that bad if so many people use them at
>international level.
I dont remember saying they were bad? I'm sure they are not
international rowers do not bother to get into bad boats. But that does
not mean that they are worth all that extra dosh! I asked what you got
for the extra price I know Pakers are OK in fact good but I do not see
the extra potential over a Sims or a Jano for any club to pay out that
extra money. But I still wait to be informed why?
>They only way to see is
>to seat race boats, and record times, I guess.
I think I agree with seat races.
The reason I dont like to look at medal tables is they are history and
Rowing is a sport that follow fashion a great deal. If everyone in a
Race at the Olympics has a Packer it might just win. That is why those
few other makes that get their and win are in my opinion proving much
more than the packers do. It is much easier to win if your one of 30
than if you are the only Sims, Aylings or Carl Douglas there, and
therefore for those makes to come back with medals probably says much
more about their competativeness than it would for yet another Packer.
However, as I previously say it crews that win not boats. A boat can
loss a race for you but its not the reason you win them.
>I have used an Empacher coxed four, which won the Britannia cup at Henley in
>1996. Some people who have used it say it
>is okay, but others say it is ont so good. I can say this : the rudder is hardly
>effective at all, which is good for
>some rivers (and regattas, of course) but on the Thames near Oxford it is a bit
>of a handful because you simply can't
>get round the corners. Also, it seems to have been made for coxes who are 3
>inches taller than me - and I considered
>myself quite tall for a cox anyway.
We have an old Veb and no one in the club is small enough to get into
the coxswains seat, even the coxswains, it strange hear a coxswain
saying he’s to short. Do you ever put larger rudders on to help get you
8s around tight bends, one of our old coxswains (cam blue) use to take
the fins off so he could slide it around our corners?
And at least you must give Carl his due he is saying why he thinks his
boats are better and worth the money. Pakers just point to the medals. I
use to believe them but I have seen one packer fall to bits from haevy
use and I am beginning to think they are fast but dont last as long as
some other makes. But my experiance of packers is very limited (what
small club can afford them 'not mine') and I am interested to know why
they are faster, why they are worth all that money.
Do the spend a lot on R &D?
Do they tank prove all designs to ensure they are faster than other
makes?
Do the last longer than I think? (My club expect a boat to have a 20
year life the first 10 being higjly competative and the second ten
becoming less competative we can afford to replace the whole fleet any
quicker than that).
Or is it like rowing a gold rolex as against a timex, they both keep the
same time but one looks better and lasts longer?
Or is it just that they have better marketing which keeps a good Boat at
the hight of top boat fashion?
Come on all you Packer fans what have they got that other boats lack?
Why do you prefer them when your club could buy almost two other fast
well made boats for the same price!
Gniwor only way to go.
john