Boat Race: buoyancy, pumps, freeboard & splashboards

[Carl Douglas]

I see a certain amount of factual confusion has arisen in a few minds
over the relative importance of these different factors.

1. Buoyancy
a) Both boats were equipped with under-seat enclosed chambers, giving
around 55kg/120lb of additional flotation per rower. That should make
them effectively "unsinkable" under their seated crews
b) This provision also acts to prevent flow along the boat. Thus water
cannot pool at one end, which was normally the final stage in the
swamping of an open, through-flow eight.
2. Pumps
a) Pumps are, relatively, a waste of space & weight in an
open-structure eight if intended to prevent swamping, since swamping is
normally a sudden process of inundation. Pumps can handle quantities of
~50-100 litres/min, whereas swamping involves influxes of 1000s of
litres/minute
b) Because these boats were fully buoyant, a sensible provision of pumps
to extract from _each_ footwell does make sense (although hardly the
optimum solution) because it allows the boat to be pumped out &
progressively lightened once the major influx has ended and the boat is
into calmer water.
c) Because the boat is thus subdivided, installation of pump(s) is a
little bit more complex, but hardly challenging. It requires either a
series of separate pumps or a properly designed scavenging system,
manifolded to one or more pumps
3. Freeboard
a) Wave fields on water are never made up of waves all of one height
uniform. There are many waves smaller than the mean height & a
decreasing number of waves which are increasingly greater than the mean.
That is why we hear talk of "rogue waves". They are no rogues: these
bigger waves are simply the statistically expected larger
representatives of the entire wave population on that patch of water -
bigger waves overtake smaller waves in their paths & absorb them, & as a
result some waves tend to get bigger than others.
b) Unless there are waves which overtop the saxboard, all you will get
into the boat is a bit of spray. Spray is spectacular, but spray puts
only a few litres of water in the boat. However, once waves run higher
than the saxboard you will, all of a sudden, get potentially vast
inflows which typically run into several tonnes/minute for the >20
metres of saxboard length.
c) It is this seemingly irrational change from a few splashes to sudden
inundation which confuses the uninitiated. How, they ask, could that
have happened? Well, hold an empty basin with its rim just 1cm below
the surface of the water and see how rapidly it fills. Nuff said?
d) Your _only_ defence against swamping influxes is to have the sides of
the boat higher above the normal waterline than you expect the waves to
reach. Depending on wave heights, even 1mm of extra freeboard could, at
the margin, make all the difference between swamping and a nearly dry
boat. IT IS THAT SENSITIVE!
e) Saxboard height has hitherto been determined as the maximum height
at which the rower is still able to avoid clouting fingers as the hands
pass over the sax. With wing riggers the identical limitations apply,
it being unhelpful to clout your fingers on them coming forward. Both
of these eights were fitted with wing riggers. To allow these to pass
over the saxboards, yet not to interfere with the rowers hands, the
saxboards were substantially lowered - indeed they were very little
higher than the sheer lines of the decks (& compare with the
conventionally rigged 2nd boat's race).
f) Choosing thus to dispense with ~50mm of freeboard for the illusory
benefit of wing riggers ensured that these would be very wet &
vulnerable boats on a rough day, & so it proved.
4. Splashboards
a) As I have said, rigger spray makes no meaningful contribution to a
swamping, & when the rigger stay is above the saxboard rigger spray is
simply irrelevant. Splashboards are unnecessary either with wings or
with our own AeRoWing riggers, yet Boat Race crews have insisted in
cluttering their boats with these draggy appendages.
b) Having 8 short splashboards, 1 running under each rigger, makes
little difference to the real cause of swamping, which is that wave tops
are running higher than the boat. The wave top encounters the end of
the splashboard, runs along over it & still flows into the boat, there
as everywhere else. Only if there was an equal sideways projection
running the entire length of the boat would there start to be a real
benefit.

In conclusion, & from watching the TV of the race:
When the boats hit the rough, both took on water but Cambridge, being ~8
metres further out from the sheltered bank, took a whole lot more than
Oxford (you can see water sluicing all over the CU boat). Oxford pulled
out to 1 length of clear water but for for some time thereafter the lead
seemed not to change, but the Cambridge boat was obviously now the
heavier. Presumably the Oxford pumps were running, so their boat was
getting lighter all the time & as it emptied & they entered the calmer
water so their pumps could beat the influx, Oxford progressively sped away.

At the finish, under the bridge, it seemed that the CU boat sat around
4cm lower in the water than OU. That represents ~60kg of water pre
centimetre, or between 200 & 250kg total. Sure, it's a very subjective
estimate, but it seems not too far out of kilter with the other comments
& evidence.

When you watch F1 racing you see a level of preparation & calculation
which seems not to enter into rowing competitions. In F1 hard science &
reason rule the decisions of the best teams. In rowing, the ultimate
belief seems to be that a combination of faith & pulling harder is all
you need & that engineering science has nothing useful to tell, either
about how you use your blade, about your equipment, or about making
necessary changes on the day of the race. Oooh! don't do that 'cos
you'll upset the crew seems to be the bottom line. Sure, I understand
it. But losing what you've spent so long training for because you
collect a couple of hundred kilos of water also tends to upset crews.

Cheers -
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1784-456344 Fax: -466550
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)

[Richard J.]

Carl Douglas wrote:
> But losing what you've spent so long training for because you
> collect a couple of hundred kilos of water also tends to upset
> crews.

And their supporters on the riverbank too! Thanks for a comprehensive
response to my and others' posts.

--
Richard J.
Cambridge graduate and Chiswick resident
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

[Rookie]

Carl Douglas wrote:
> I see a certain amount of factual confusion has arisen in a few minds
> over the relative importance of these different factors.
>
> 1. Buoyancy
> a) Both boats were equipped with under-seat enclosed chambers, giving
> around 55kg/120lb of additional flotation per rower. That should make
> them effectively "unsinkable" under their seated crews
> b) This provision also acts to prevent flow along the boat. Thus water
> cannot pool at one end, which was normally the final stage in the
> swamping of an open, through-flow eight.
> 2. Pumps
> a) Pumps are, relatively, a waste of space & weight in an
> open-structure eight if intended to prevent swamping, since swamping is
> normally a sudden process of inundation. Pumps can handle quantities of
> ~50-100 litres/min, whereas swamping involves influxes of 1000s of
> litres/minute
> b) Because these boats were fully buoyant, a sensible provision of pumps
> to extract from _each_ footwell does make sense (although hardly the
> optimum solution)

Out of interest, what would the optimal solution be?

Very useful post!

[Carl Douglas]

Rookie wrote:
> Carl Douglas wrote:
>
>>I see a certain amount of factual confusion has arisen in a few minds
>>over the relative importance of these different factors.
>>
>>1. Buoyancy
>>a) Both boats were equipped with under-seat enclosed chambers, giving
>>around 55kg/120lb of additional flotation per rower. That should make
>>them effectively "unsinkable" under their seated crews
>>b) This provision also acts to prevent flow along the boat. Thus water
>>cannot pool at one end, which was normally the final stage in the
>>swamping of an open, through-flow eight.
>>2. Pumps
>>a) Pumps are, relatively, a waste of space & weight in an
>>open-structure eight if intended to prevent swamping, since swamping is
>>normally a sudden process of inundation. Pumps can handle quantities of
>>~50-100 litres/min, whereas swamping involves influxes of 1000s of
>>litres/minute
>>b) Because these boats were fully buoyant, a sensible provision of pumps
>>to extract from _each_ footwell does make sense (although hardly the
>>optimum solution)
>
>
> Out of interest, what would the optimal solution be?
>

I might just sit on the details of that one ;) Sorry about that.

<big snip>
>
>
> Very useful post!
>

Thank you -
Carl

[ze...@zekehoskin.com]

Saxboard height is not the only answer, though it is the only way to
have a dry boat. Some (maybe all) open water racing sculls have low
sides but very little cockpit volume, so "swamping" means that you are
very wet but there's not much water in the boat. A suction bailer can
deal with that. I have no idea how much drag that adds, but a simple
change in rules would remover the temptation to do without.

(Carl, I know very well that you know about open water sculls, but my
guess is that most r.s.r. readers have never rowed a Maas in
every-wave-over-the-hull chop.)

[Carl Douglas]

You're right. You can have a perfectly rowable boat, & great fun, with
waves breaking all over - provided it is a) fully buoyant & b) has
minimised capacity to hold water.

The advantage of keeping the water out is that if flows over the
topsides as well as the underneath that increases both the drag & the
boat's displacement. And any water which not only flows over the boat
but actually spends time travelling in the boat has cost you further
energy to bring it up to boat speed.

Inland rowing normally happens on the interface betwixt air & water, not
in a mixed air/water phase as happened for a couple of minutes in
Sunday's race, so one should design for lowest combined air & water drag
while arranging things so as to keep nasty water out without thereby
increasing wind resistance. That is, of course, a bit of a compromise,
which is where the unfamiliar (to rowing) concept of engineering design
comes in. To try to exclude water by erecting a ruddy great wind break
(as Cambridge did with a rather ineffectual raised breakwater) penalises
performance into a head-wind but does nothing about the fact that all
the really serious influx is from wave tops quietly sloshing in over ~24
metres of undefended (& in this case deliberately lowered) saxboard.
Odd how rowers presume that it is spectacular spray, not the almost
unseen overflowing of wave tops, that fills the boat.

[Charles Carroll]

> my guess is that most r.s.r. readers have never rowed a Maas in
> every-wave-over-the-hull chop.)

I row a Maas 24 in “every-wave-over-the-hull chop.”

My own experience corroborates Carl’s observations. I have never opened the
self-bailer because of a “bit of spay.” It is water coming in over the top
and flooding the cockpit that causes me to open it.

What with all the rain and wind these past several weeks in San Francisco,
the chop has been especially fierce and I’ve found myself using the
self-bailer rather regularly.

My experience, however, is limited. It has been almost exclusively with Maas
boats. In the two years I have been sculling I have only managed to put in
twenty minutes in a true flat-water racing single. But I loved rowing it. It
was a Hudson, and I did indeed row it through chop, but not the
“every-wave-over-the-hull chop,” which you describe.

The problem, if one can call it a problem, is that I fell in love with
rowing the flat-water single. I am actually thinking about purchasing one.

But how does a flat-water single handle “every-wave-over-the-hull chop?”
What do you do with water in the cockpit when you don’t have a self-bailer?
Can you race a flat-water single through such chop? Or are you mostly just
trying to keep yourself from capsizing until you find a less choppy patch of
water?

[ze...@zekehoskin.com]

I've seen Robert Meenk race an Empacher single in such chop. He did
okay, but I'm pretty sure he would have gone faster in a Maas. As I
recollect, he did go faster than everybody else except a double (I just
checked. He beat all the high performance kayaks too. See soundrowers
results for Mercer Island 2004).

So it can obviously be done, at least by a very good rower. I sure
can't do it.

[J Flory]

Charles Carroll wrote:
> > my guess is that most r.s.r. readers have never rowed a Maas in
> > every-wave-over-the-hull chop.)
>
> I row a Maas 24 in "every-wave-over-the-hull chop."

I used to row an Alden Star under those conditions.

> My own experience corroborates Carl's observations. I have never opened the
> self-bailer because of a "bit of spay." It is water coming in over the top
> and flooding the cockpit that causes me to open it.

Yup!

> What with all the rain and wind these past several weeks in San Francisco,

I happen to be in the Bay area at the moment and the rain is
impressive.

> the chop has been especially fierce and I've found myself using the
> self-bailer rather regularly.

Yes self-bailer works well under marginal conditions when a
"statistical wave" fills the cockpit (or under good conditions when you
get waked). When conditions worsen to the point that you are not
moving forward WRT the water (too much wind, waves stopping the boat or
shortening your strokes) a through-the-hull self bailer stops working.

[snip]

> But how does a flat-water single handle "every-wave-over-the-hull chop?"

Depends on the boat design and the shape of the splashbox. In my
limited experience, Vespoli Matrix was wet, 2004 Hudson was OK,
Empacher with conventional riggers has been surprisingly dry.

> What do you do with water in the cockpit when you don't have a self-bailer?

I bring along a fabric-covered sponge I bought in a kayak shop.
Obviously this won't help when water is coming in. First one gets to
smoother water, then one sloshes out as much as possible by rowing,
then one sponges out the remainder.

> Can you race a flat-water single through such chop?

It really depends on the height, frequency, and direction of the chop
and the wind. I've raced under lousy conditions and stayed drier than
I expected.

>Or are you mostly just
> trying to keep yourself from capsizing until you find a less choppy patch of
> water?

I never felt I was going to capsize so much as swamp and lose mobility.

[Henry Law]

Carl Douglas wrote:

> heavier. Presumably the Oxford pumps were running, so their boat was

One of the press reports linked from RQ's news page said they didn't
actually run the pumps, but others said the opposite. I presume the
former were in error ... can anyone confirm that?

--

Henry Law <>< Manchester, England

[Mike Sullivan]

"J Flory" <john....@snet.net> wrote in message
news:1144096218....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>

snip

>> What with all the rain and wind these past several weeks in San
>> Francisco,
>
> I happen to be in the Bay area at the moment and the rain is
> impressive.

Where are you, need a place to row?

[Mike Sullivan]

"Charles Carroll" <ch_...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:rdidnRHM8Y4...@comcast.com...

>> my guess is that most r.s.r. readers have never rowed a Maas in
>> every-wave-over-the-hull chop.)
>
> I row a Maas 24 in "every-wave-over-the-hull chop."

I totally zoned on your email, sorry. I won't be around for Sausalito,
son and I have a 3 day bike trip planned. Thanks for the offer.

snip

> The problem, if one can call it a problem, is that I fell in love with
> rowing the flat-water single. I am actually thinking about purchasing one.
>

once you get into one, it's hard to go back!

> But how does a flat-water single handle "every-wave-over-the-hull chop?"
> What do you do with water in the cockpit when you don't have a
> self-bailer?
> Can you race a flat-water single through such chop? Or are you mostly just
> trying to keep yourself from capsizing until you find a less choppy patch
> of
> water?

A sculler in a single should be able to handle some pretty nasty water, but
side swell is a lot harder in a single.

I tested Aero/24/Wherry in really heavy water on the lake, and the wherry
is much better at moving along in any direction in 1-2 foot whitecaps.
for really rough water, a wherry is superior to the Maas boats.

The Aero was better in heavy chop than the 24 by far, but had this
odd characteristic of 'pearling'. Sometimes a head on wave
would catch me as I was on the ond of the drive, and I'd drive the boat
completely
underwater, actually unseating myself. It would pop up again,
but it was unsettling. I adjusted by interrupting my stroke and
moving forward on the slide if i felt my bow bury.

I have not tried to surf the aero at Baker beach like I heard
a couple of the Sausalito guys tried!

But let me be clear, the Aero is a vastly superior club boat to
a wherry - it's a great little boat. Stable and quick, light and easily
carried around, and very sturdy and forgiving of club use. I love
teaching new people in them.

Mike

[Henning Lippke]

Charles Carroll wrote:
> But how does a flat-water single handle “every-wave-over-the-hull chop?”

I've had this fun last year, on the river Elbe, just southeast of
Hamburg. Wind from the west @4 Bft, against the stream. This lasted for
about 60-90 minutes, with short 'dry' parts in between.

The boat behaved normally, no problems with keeping the balance or such.
It's fun once, and in summer, but I don't need it too often.
You have to be quite careful not to lose one or both oars when they hit
the waves from time to time. And the spray on the grips doesn't help.
Overall not a very relaxing thing.

The water from the footwell leaves as quick as it comes in, and settles
at 'half-full'. Everything else is dry, although I forgot to tighten the
main hatch, so some water entered the boat, but not enough to threaten
my mobile phone in there.

[Whipper]

Carl

as you can imagine great amounts of time and deliberation were spent
over how to protect our hull fromm lowering itself so far that the
water did swamp the boat!!

A run of splash boards along the entire boat !!!! Is that not what
cambridge did!!!

What i/we did had a great affect more than YOU give it credit for !!!

I wish i could tell you what i did but if so I would have to shoot you
!!!!!

Yours

Unsung

[J Flory]

Mike Sullivan wrote:

> Where are you, need a place to row?

I'll e-mail you at your Stanford address.

[Carl Douglas]

Ian -
I didn't doubt that there was more to it, nor that you & the OUBC guys
applied your considerable collective ingenuity to it ;) And the boys
made the most of it, too. So well done all round.

Since I didn't have hands on either boat I can't comment on hiden
detail, even in confidence. But maybe one day we can share thoughts &
compare notes?

The Boat Race is such a great event, so it always depresses me when one
or other, or both, ignore good technology. In view of the overall cost
of the event, it deserves rather better than the string & sealing wax
approach. Some things need planning over a greater distance, & I have
to say that the current penchant for racing great & expensively trained
crews in "committee boats" simply boggles the mind.

[RMTT]

> The water from the footwell leaves as quick as it comes in, and settles
> at 'half-full'. Everything else is dry, although I forgot to tighten the
> main hatch, so some water entered the boat, but not enough to threaten
> my mobile phone in there.

How do you keep your phone from moving around inside in the hull? Velcro, duct
tape, something else? Do you put it in a baggy to keep it dry?

[Henning Lippke]

RMTT wrote:
> How do you keep your phone from moving around inside in the hull?
> Velcro, duct tape, something else? Do you put it in a baggy to keep it dry?

I have a tight leather case with a belt clip for my phone - nothing
special. Something you can get for a couple of Euros.

The belt clip is then hooked over the string that secures the hatch cover.

[J Flory]

http://www.aquapac.net/

[Sarah F]

http://www.jetphotographic.com/showphoto.php?id=103890

shows them tipping lots of water out after the outing on wednesday that
JET were there to capture...

[Carl Douglas]

adam.h...@gmail.com wrote:
> just a point of interest...may or may not be useful;
>
> 2 london crews did the mock boatrace on saturday for an ITV practice
> run through. Conditions were near enough the same and unsurprisingly,
> the crew on the middlesex station took on a load more water than the
> crew on the surrey side around the island with several concerns over a
> possible sinking.
>

That is entirely relevant, Adam.

The brutally steep relationship between wave height, freeboard & the
point of onset of swamping (it goes from almost nothing to everything in
a centimetre or so) means that just a few metres one side or t'other of
an invisible magic line can make all the difference between your boat
swamping & staying almost dry. It is also that apparent arbitrariness
which makes understanding swamping so counter-intuitive - it is hard to
"nearly" swamp.

[Christopher Anton]

"Carl Douglas" <ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e0r1qi$ing$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...

>I see a certain amount of factual confusion has arisen in a few minds over
>the relative importance of these different factors.
>

It's rather depressing that the Cambridge chief coach can not understand the
basics involved, spend months and pounds on fine tuning the boat, the men,
making sure that the cos is exactly 55kg and the rowers are at their most
efficient weight and not give a toss about the prospect of lugging dozens of
kgs of water along the course.

[Charles Carroll]

> I've seen Robert Meenk race an Empacher single in such chop. He did
> okay, but I'm pretty sure he would have gone faster in a Maas. As I

Why would Meenk have gone faster in a Maas?

[Charles Carroll]

> > The problem, if one can call it a problem, is that I fell in love with
> > rowing the flat-water single. I am actually thinking about purchasing
one.
> >
> once you get into one, it's hard to go back!

Mike,

I just loved the quickness of the flat-water single. And its responsiveness.

The Maas 24 is an excellent boat. It serves me very well. And I am finding,
as I gradually become more confident, that I can go just anywhere in it.

Yet I cannot purge a flat-water racing single from my thoughts. Crazy, eh?

Sorry you can't take me up on my offer. Have a good ride with your son. Hope
the weather gives you a break.

Cordially,

Charles

[Charles Carroll]

Henning,

Which shell were you rowing? Am I remembering correctly? Don't you own a
Carl Douglas? Was it one of Carl's?

Cordially,

Charles

[Charles Carroll]

> > What do you do with water in the cockpit when you don't have a
self-bailer?
>
> I bring along a fabric-covered sponge I bought in a kayak shop.
> Obviously this won't help when water is coming in. First one gets to
> smoother water, then one sloshes out as much as possible by rowing,
> then one sponges out the remainder.

That would work, although I imagine it would impede you considerably if you
were racing.

I guess the answer is that you just wouldn't want to race any boat in
"every-wave-over-the-hull chop" without a self-bailer.

That's the main reason against purchasing a flat-water single. So many
events on the West Coast of the United States are closed to shells without
self-bailers.

Am I correct in thinking that no boatbuilder will install a self-bailer in a
flat-water racing single?

By the way, if you want to try a different part of the San Francisco Bay
from Mike's South Bay, let me know. Maybe we can go out together.

Cordially,

Charles

[Mike Sullivan]

"Charles Carroll" <ch_...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:dJ6dnTpjnJjFPq_Z...@comcast.com...

>> > The problem, if one can call it a problem, is that I fell in love with
>> > rowing the flat-water single. I am actually thinking about purchasing
> one.
>> >
>> once you get into one, it's hard to go back!
>
> Mike,
>
> I just loved the quickness of the flat-water single. And its
> responsiveness.
>
> The Maas 24 is an excellent boat. It serves me very well. And I am
> finding,
> as I gradually become more confident, that I can go just anywhere in it.

It's a good boat. Standard parts among the Maas boats is a huge plus,
LOCAL service, and I love the clogs. We are lucky around here!

>
> Yet I cannot purge a flat-water racing single from my thoughts. Crazy, eh?

As you try out flatwater single, you might read my post today about releases
in the 'heel' thread.

Mike

[Carl Douglas]

Charles -

All good racing singles are fully self-baling. The most they can
possibly hold (in the footwell) is about 17 litres, & a single stroke
ejects 3/4 of that immediately.

[Whipper]

Well said !!

Why would you neglect even loading this stuff on to your boat, even if
at the last minute as in the past you have to rip it out!!!! Hours and
hours of hard work but if it's needed look at the benefits!!! I can't
believe with the number of tideway hours in the other camp that things
were not in place?

20,000 pounds worth of committee boat!!! now there's a thought,if only
they spent that much on committee boats in my day!!

Lets blame it on the weather!!!

Lets blame it on the speed of reaction!!!

Let's just say !!! The fastest crew on the day WON!!!!

[ze...@zekehoskin.com]

Over is faster than through.

I'm not a particularly good rowers, but a lot of good rowers chose the
short race that year. I listened to them as we watched Meenk row in.
There was consensus that an open water shell would have spent less time
underwater and gone faster.

[Henning Lippke]

Charles Carroll wrote:
> Which shell were you rowing? Am I remembering correctly? Don't you own a
> Carl Douglas? Was it one of Carl's?

Yes, it is a CDRS I own & use frequently, also that day on the Elbe. It
always does a very reliable job. In flat water as in the chop we have
when ships pass by (I took it out into our sea-port last weekend :-)).

[Nick Suess]

"Whipper" <iandav...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144172266.8...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Now, as a Cambridge man, I simply can't accept that statement.

NO BLOODY WAY!!!!!!!!

It was the FASTER crew who won.

[Jeremy Fagan]

That is precisely the kind of pedantry up with which we should not put.

Jeremy

[Whipper]

Is that not what i said?

[Richard J.]

Whipper wrote:
> Is that not what i said?

No idea. If you don't quote anything from the message you're replying
to, it's hard to tell. We don't all use Google Groups, you know.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

[Charles Carroll]

> Yes, it is a CDRS I own & use frequently, also that day on the Elbe. It
> always does a very reliable job. In flat water as in the chop we have
> when ships pass by (I took it out into our sea-port last weekend :-)).

That's the kind of thing I love to hear.

[Charles Carroll]

Mike,

I couldn't agree more. We are indeed very lucky around here.

I just re-read your post about releases. It just corroborates everything I
have been trying to do. Maybe one day I will get there.

Cordially,

Charles

[Charles Carroll]

> All good racing singles are fully self-baling. The most they can
> possibly hold (in the footwell) is about 17 litres, & a single stroke
> ejects 3/4 of that immediately.

Carl,

That is so good to hear.

I think most people on rsr must think I am a lunatic to fret so much over
something like a self-baler. (Is that a typo? Or is that how it is spelt in
the UK?)

In any event, I could have used a self-bailing boat yesterday morning. In my
24 I kept having to stop to open the self-bailer. When the water is really
rough, sometimes you don't want to stop. Indeed sometimes you can't stop.

The more I think about self-bailers the less I understand about why the big
open water races in these parts require them.

I had thought it was because self-bailers made boats safer. But if a boat is
fully buoyant and self-bailing, how is it any less safe than a boat with a
self-bailer?

Cordially,

Charles

[Carl Douglas]

Charles Carroll wrote:
>>All good racing singles are fully self-baling. The most they can
>>possibly hold (in the footwell) is about 17 litres, & a single stroke
>>ejects 3/4 of that immediately.
>
>
> Carl,
>
> That is so good to hear.
>
> I think most people on rsr must think I am a lunatic to fret so much over
> something like a self-baler. (Is that a typo? Or is that how it is spelt in
> the UK?)

Dang! Twine is used in balers. Buckets are used for bailing. My
parents wasted their money on my edification, methinks. Slinks away
with red face to read up on common English homophones .....

>
> In any event, I could have used a self-bailing boat yesterday morning. In my
> 24 I kept having to stop to open the self-bailer. When the water is really
> rough, sometimes you don't want to stop. Indeed sometimes you can't stop.
>
> The more I think about self-bailers the less I understand about why the big
> open water races in these parts require them.
>
> I had thought it was because self-bailers made boats safer. But if a boat is
> fully buoyant and self-bailing, how is it any less safe than a boat with a
> self-bailer?

If you have a 4 or 8, a case can be made (because it has plenty of
freeboard, & a cox sat in the way), for the suction bailer vent in the
bottom of the hull - about which I suspect you are talking. With a 1x
or 2x, both of which have small volume footwells, a well-designed aft
bulkhead allows the stroke cycle to shoot water back out over the aft deck.

Any help?

[Charles Carroll]

Carl,

Yes, you are quite right. By self-bailer I mean a “suction bailer vent in
the bottom of the hull.”

Until I read your post I had thought that a “self-bailer” is a safety device
installed in all true open water shells, singles, doubles, etc.

But now that I have your post I see things from a slightly different
perspective. There is no way that I am going to shoot water back out over
the aft deck of my single during a stroke cycle. My single is just not
designed to do this. So it occurs to me that the self-bailer has been
installed to address a flaw in the design of the shell.

Cordially,

Charles

[Jon Anderson]

Whipper wrote:
> Is that not what i said?
>

No he was playing games with English. To say Oxford were the fastest
crew means you're saying they were better. So say they were faster
implies (sort of) that they were only quicker on the day.

But, as we all know, it's all about being quicker on the day. So, er, I
guess he's implying that they fully deserved to win.

Jon
--
Durge: j...@durge.org http://users.durge.org/~jon/
OnStream: acco...@rowing.org.uk http://www.rowing.org.uk/

[ All views expressed are personal unless otherwise stated ]

[Rob Collings]

Jon Anderson wrote:
> Whipper wrote:
> > Is that not what i said?
> >
>
> No he was playing games with English. To say Oxford were the fastest
> crew means you're saying they were better. So say they were faster
> implies (sort of) that they were only quicker on the day.

Or to be pedantic - 'faster' is the appropriate comparative adjective
within a group of 2, but in a group of three or more it would be
'fastest.' So you can never gramatically be the fastest of 2 boats nor
the faster of 3.

Damned pedents ;-)

Rob.

[John Mulholland]

"Jon Anderson" <j...@durge.org> wrote in message
news:e18fk5$1tr$1...@heisenberg.grid-zero.net...

I don't often take issue over the English language but...

Faster implies faster of two, fastest implies fastest of three or more.

And, as far as I know, the result of only one day is relevant; and on that
day Oxford was the faster.

--
John Mulholland

[Nick Suess]

"Carl Douglas" <ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message

news:e11p06$l85$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...

> Charles Carroll wrote:
>>>All good racing singles are fully self-baling. The most they can
>>>possibly hold (in the footwell) is about 17 litres, & a single stroke
>>>ejects 3/4 of that immediately.
>>
>>
>> Carl,
>>
>> That is so good to hear.
>>
>> I think most people on rsr must think I am a lunatic to fret so much over
>> something like a self-baler. (Is that a typo? Or is that how it is spelt
>> in
>> the UK?)
>
> Dang! Twine is used in balers. Buckets are used for bailing. My parents
> wasted their money on my edification, methinks. Slinks away with red face
> to read up on common English homophones .....

Didn't read enough. Both bale and bail are accepted spellings for the verb
meaning to empty water out of a boat, but the latter is in more common
current usage.

My notion on suction type self-ba(i)lers is that the water is ejected
through a tiddly little rectangular hole, and so the rate at which it drains
out ain't all that big. Whereas, as Carl points out, most if not all modern
singles and pairs/doubles have a gently sloping bulkhead astern of the
footstretcher which allows much of the water in the footwell to be ejected
sternwards by just taking a good vigorous catch. So that's a big volume
ba(i)ling system.

[Charles Carroll]

> Didn't read enough. Both bale and bail are accepted spellings for the verb
> meaning to empty water out of a boat, but the latter is in more common
> current usage.

Hi Nick,

I am so lazy. I didn't even take the thirty seconds to go to the OED and
lift the appropriate volume from the shelf. I have the Second Edition, all
twenty volumes, not five feet from where I am sitting. It was a gift from a
friend. And yes, if you are thinking that I have some very nice friends, I
do indeed.

Anyway, now having the OED right next to me I can quote: "bale ...
[Erroneous spelling of BAIL ...]" The first citation: "1627 Capt. Smith
'Seaman's Gram'., vi 27 ... 1692 Ibid. I. xvi. To Bale, to lade Water out
of the Ships Hold with Buckets, or the like."

When Carl spelt it that way I thought it might be a UK variant of bail. For
my part it was nothing more than curiosity.

> My notion on suction type self-ba(i)lers is that the water is ejected
> through a tiddly little rectangular hole, and so the rate at which it
drains
> out ain't all that big.

My experience with my Maas 24 is that the suction type self-bailer empties
the cockpit right away, within seconds, but only if I can get the shell up
to speed. As has already been pointed out, this can be quite difficult to do
if the water is very rough.

After I read Carl's message, I went through the boathouse and inspected the
flat-water racing singles. These are the same singles that we saw the day I
took you there. One especially, a twenty-five year old John Gash with some
real history, has that "gently sloping bulkhead astern of the
footstretcher." But I have never taken it out, so I can't say how well it
works.

It seems rather obvious that I have been doing a lot of thinking about the
"seaworthiness" of flat-water racing singles. Yesterday I actually took a
few minutes to begin researching the "Deep-Vee bow."

Funny thing is that the more I research the less sure I am about the
differences between open water singles and flat water singles. I used to
think that the one true significant difference between them is that all open
water singles come with self-bailers, that is, come with the ability to
remove water from the cockpit under adverse conditions. With Carl's post I
realize that this is just wrong.

But I have written enough! I'm going to go scull.

See you soon.

Charles

[Nick Suess]

"Charles Carroll" <ch_...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:tM-dnaVmQ_HNDKfZ...@comcast.com...

>> Didn't read enough. Both bale and bail are accepted spellings for the
>> verb
>> meaning to empty water out of a boat, but the latter is in more common
>> current usage.
>
> Hi Nick,
>
> I am so lazy. I didn't even take the thirty seconds to go to the OED and
> lift the appropriate volume from the shelf. I have the Second Edition, all
> twenty volumes, not five feet from where I am sitting. It was a gift from
> a
> friend. And yes, if you are thinking that I have some very nice friends, I
> do indeed.
>
> Anyway, now having the OED right next to me I can quote: "bale ...
> [Erroneous spelling of BAIL ...]" The first citation: "1627 Capt. Smith
> 'Seaman's Gram'., vi 27 ... 1692 Ibid. I. xvi. To Bale, to lade Water out
> of the Ships Hold with Buckets, or the like."

Well, I hate to dispute things with the OED but winning the boat race
doesn't mean that sad excuse for a university gets much else right! I mean,
if a spelling has been in regular currency since 1627, a time when there was
no standardisation of spellings, I think we can regard it as an alternative
rather than an error.

However, we do know for sure and certain that "colour" has a "u", centre
ends in "re", and also that burglars like to burgle houses, not "burglarise"
them, and "momentarily" means taking place for only a short period of time,
and not imminently. We are also aware that the stress in "offence" and
"defence" is in both cases on the second syllable, that "lever" rhymes with
"beaver", and we know how to pronounce "aluminium", which is as it is
written. OK? Good!

> When Carl spelt it that way I thought it might be a UK variant of bail.
> For
> my part it was nothing more than curiosity.

I know you both, and Carl is more curious than you.

[John Mulholland]

"Nick Suess" <ni...@scull.com.au> wrote in message
news:e1ec9n$cur$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...

>
> "Charles Carroll" <ch_...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:tM-dnaVmQ_HNDKfZ...@comcast.com...

<snip>

>> When Carl spelt it that way I thought it might be a UK variant of bail.
>> For
>> my part it was nothing more than curiosity.
>
> I know you both, and Carl is more curious than you.

Can't resist it... In what way, curious? Strange or inquisitive?

--
John Mulholland

[Carl Douglas]

Or perhaps both?

Another of those knotty linguistic problems, like the old one: "Is it
funny-peculiar, or funny-haha?".

C