Going, going, gone !
Wilf Williams
the last few years, but thought that I would relate my experiences of
the weekend here.
My team started Saturdays EUREGA, a 100 km marathon on the Rhine. We
used the same boat as last year. (I Posted a link to 2005 photo's
recently)
http://www.treviris.de/albums/view_album.php?set_albumName=eurega2005
Unlike last year, this year was warm and sunny weather, benign
conditions. We shipped a few biggish waves, this is normal on the
Rhine, however the bilge pump dealt with the inflow. The boat was
moving fine, and we were on schedule for a reasonable time, not a win,
or a course record (broken this year by a mixed 4x at 4:57 !!)
45km into the race, just after Koblenz, there is an area of standing
waves. Unfortunately it was here where we met three ships line a-breast
coming up stream. Two passenger liners, and a double pusher barge. The
waves were four feet high at least. The first wave hit, and the bow
ploughed into the water, the second wave filled the boat, and third
forth and fifth sank it. Game over in less than ten seconds. The boat,
a non buoyant ancient wooden 4x, disappeared under out feet. We were
left holding onto the sculls.
There were a few anxious calls to the safety boat on the other side (1
km away) personally I was screaming "HELP" at the top of my voice. We
waited in the water for a few minutes repeating to our each other to
"stay with the boat" and to "breathe deeply".
As we waited the boat slowly resurfaced, from being able to touch it
with my feet, I could see the hull, but it would not support our
weight. After what seemed like an eternity the safety boat arrived,
and took us to the bank. Another zodiac rescued the boat, seats, and
most of our possessions.
15 minutes after sinking we were sitting in the warm sunshine wrapped
in hairy blankets, shivering, I was surprised how shocked I was, unlike
the others I have been following the discussions here, so I could quite
clearly see what the consequences could have been.
The logistical nightmare of boat trailers, cars and the rest was, as
you can imagine tedious.
We count ourselves very lucky to only have lost two splash tops, two
mobile phones, a few tools, car keys, etc. Without the safety boat
present it would have clearly been a disaster.
If I ever think about doing it again, (unlikely) it will definitely
have to be a modern buoyant boat with self bailers, and I will be
wearing some form of life jacket.
Went out sculling on Sunday afternoon, a nice quiet time to think, and
really appreciate what I could have so nearly lost.
Wilf
kda...@kidare.com
> SNIP
> 45km into the race, just after Koblenz, there is an area of standing
> waves. Unfortunately it was here where we met three ships line a-breast
> coming up stream. Two passenger liners, and a double pusher barge. The
> waves were four feet high at least. The first wave hit, and the bow
> ploughed into the water, the second wave filled the boat, and third
> forth and fifth sank it. Game over in less than ten seconds. The boat,
> a non buoyant ancient wooden 4x, disappeared under out feet. We were
> left holding onto the sculls.
>
> SNIP
Wilf,
Glad to hear you're all well.
A question: In your estimation were you sunk because all these waves
came at once, or would just one lot have sunk you anyway? The reason I
ask is that I can imagine passenger ships are a daily hazard on the
Rhine, so (not being critical of you personally, you understand) was
the boat fit for purpose? What was the safety advice from the
organisers? Were the boats assessed for seaworthiness at all?
Kit
Carl Douglas
Many thanks for the report, Wilf. Like Kit, I'm much relieved to hear
that things turned out OK for all concerned. Last year a rower died in
a not dissimilar mishap on the Rhine.
I would take this opportunity to underline Kit's point: no valid risk
assessment could ever approve the use of a non-buoyant shell on the
Rhine. Yet non-buoyant shells & C-boats are very regularly used on that
river, swampings necessitating rescue are far from rare, & still we get
folk arguing against making those boats fully buoyant.
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)
Wilf Williams
waves in the format that they hit the boat. As you can see all of the
boats have a sort of "tent" built on the bow and the stern, these
"split" the normal sized waves, but three tsunami sized waves within
ten seconds, no chance. If the boat had some sort of buoyancy, we may
have been able to sit it and row ashore, possibly sorting things out.
The 360 gal per hour pump would have helped. Interestingly there was an
article (several pages) in the German Ruder magazine last month on how
to make an old tub buoyant. I was thinking along the lines of it'll
never happen to me/us until Saturday. Then it did! The Eurega
organizers, do in fact point out the dangers, and have escorting fleet
of safety boats for the entire 100 km; additionally each village town
on the way has its safety boats, out spotting for boats in danger. So
no blame in any way for them, it's a fantastic event, and really well
organized.
I did sign the paper saying something along the lines of "I understand
that the Rhine is very dangerous, and I understand what kind of risks
I'm taking".
I'm not one of those who looks for blame, if anything it's my fault for
not sticking to my statement last year of "I'm not doing that again in
an old wooden boat." One of the problems with our new BBG gig fours is
that there are buoyancy compartments under each seat, but they are not
connected to the stern foot well with a pipe, so they would fill up
with water, and no way of connecting four pumps up. That and the fact
that they cost a fortune and we wouldn't want to smash them up on the
Rhine meant that they were sitting gleaming in the boat house whilst
all this was going on!
Wilf
kda...@kidare.com
Wilf Williams wrote:
> I would be surprised if any boat would have survived the succession of
> waves in the format that they hit the boat.
I think the key question is, how likely is a succession of waves like
that on the Rhine given its traffic, and I would think the answer is
"pretty high". From the comfort of my armchair, I am surprised the
organisers allowed non-buoyant boats to go afloat, especially, as Carl
mentions, a rower died on that river recently.
Hopefully, competitors will take note and make their boats buoyant for
future races. It must be a heck of a race!
Kit
bill
kda...@kidare.com wrote:
SNIP
> I am surprised the
> organisers allowed non-buoyant boats to go afloat, especially, as Carl
> mentions, a rower died on that river recently.
If I were to be a race oraganiser, the last thing I would want to do is
get involved in determining "fitness for use". That would open the
organiser up for all sorts of horrible lawsuits--including criminal
negligence.
Better to lay the "fitness for use" question on the owners of the boats
themselves. That is why the "waiver" you sign before the event.
Sure, you can sue the organiser, but if he has shown that the racers
agree that safe boats are their own responsibility, then that protects
the organiser.
The Law Of Unintended Consequenses deems that if we were to push in the
direction of all Race Organisers taking responsibility for the
seaworthiness of the boats, then there will be no race organisers, and
therefore no races.
That is the way it works. I've seen this in many different sports (bike
racing, sailing, rowing, skateboarding, rollerblading, and others).
As an example of the Race Organiser problem: At some point in my
bicycle racing career, the USCF stopped checking tubulars for
"roll-off" before junior races. The reaon that was told to me: that if
an inspector missed a poorly mounted tyre, then the USCF would be
responsible for the damage to racer's bikes or even injury. As it
turned out during the national championship race my brother, and the
national champion, both got taken down on the last turn, by a rolled
tyre from somebody on the inside of the turn. That's the way it
goes--that's racing.
Mike Sullivan
"Wilf Williams" <pm_wi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147076658.6...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
snip
> 45km into the race, just after Koblenz, there is an area of standing
> waves. Unfortunately it was here where we met three ships line a-breast
> coming up stream. Two passenger liners, and a double pusher barge. The
> waves were four feet high at least. The first wave hit, and the bow
> ploughed into the water, the second wave filled the boat, and third
> forth and fifth sank it. Game over in less than ten seconds. The boat,
> a non buoyant ancient wooden 4x, disappeared under out feet. We were
> left holding onto the sculls.
4 ft standing waves? Is this typical of that
particular spot? In other words, did you know
that was going to be there ahead of time?
KC
bill wrote:
> Sure, you can sue the organiser, but if he has shown that the racers
> agree that safe boats are their own responsibility, then that protects
> the organiser.
Bill, I think you live in the USA, so I'm surprised you put so much
faith in those forms we all fill out before every "risky" activity.
waiviers are virutally a useless formality any more. A competent
lawyer can overcome most waiver forms in court.
I presume this is why regatta officals check heelstraps and bowballs
(not that this accomplishes much). If the waivers really held water
(no pun) then the organizers would have no reason to care whatsoever
whether a rower had proper heelstraps... except maybe out of
compassion.
Maybe you're right to some extent though. If the USCF can wash their
hands of responsibility for tubular (aka sew-up?) tires, then why could
the USRA not wash their hands of responsibility for heelstraps in every
boat? Not that I'm suggesting this would be a good turn of events --
I'm not -- but I do wonder why this seeming contradiction exists.
-Kieran
Mike Sullivan
"KC" <kc_...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:1147114085.0...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> bill wrote:
>> Sure, you can sue the organiser, but if he has shown that the racers
>> agree that safe boats are their own responsibility, then that protects
>> the organiser.
snip
> Maybe you're right to some extent though. If the USCF can wash their
> hands of responsibility for tubular (aka sew-up?) tires, then why could
> the USRA not wash their hands of responsibility for heelstraps in every
> boat? Not that I'm suggesting this would be a good turn of events --
> I'm not -- but I do wonder why this seeming contradiction exists.
The problem is the huge disconnect between legal responsibility
and taking responsibility. Boat rental places at our lake can get
insurance for renting out jetskis and ski boats, and send people
out with about 2 mins instruction on how to turn it on and how
to turn it off.
They won't rent sailboats because they aren't insurable.
Have you yet been to the Reno whitewater park? Talk
about an attractive nuisance, yet you can see the careful
wording in the warning signs. Like warnings at NorCal beaches,
it tells you basically that it's a dangerous place - that's it.
Then you see a bunch of people out having a good time, it
doesn't look so dangerous.
Mike
Carl Douglas
You took your chance, knowing the Rhine could be like the N. Sea in
places. You took what you thought were OK precautions. Unfortunately,
your assessment overlooked reports on RSR of Rhine events which have
gone from rowing to swimming & even to the mortuary. Yet each of those
mishaps arose because the boat had insufficient enclosed empty volume to
be able to float & support its seated crew when swamped.
In a the boat with adequate buoyancy, you _would_ not only
> have been able to sit it and row ashore
but that suggested rowing ashore would not even have been necessary.
Sure, you'd have acquired a lot of water but, given even the least
adequate means of removing that excess (cups, shoes or balers), after
passing through the rough patch, you'd have been able to expel most of
it & resume your trip in reasonable style.
Many rowers fail to understand that an adequately buoyant boat becomes
neither dangerous nor unrowable when swamped. I thought this year's
Boat Race in the UK demonstrated that point with great clarity, & the
Archimedean maths is unarguable.
You indicated that your boat went down in ~10 seconds, which suggests an
influx of around 5 tonnes/minute, yet you talk about pumps. No pump you
could carry on a 4x could remotely handle that flow rate. When you hit
that sort of chop, in a buoyant boat you just fight your way through to
the calmer stuff & then get rid of the water you picked up but, if your
boat is under-buoyant, you _will_ sink, period.
So it was a bad mistake to leave that new, buoyant shell at home. For
survival purposes battery pumps are irrelevant - it's the buoyancy
compartments which keep you afloat & able to row. The pumps are just a
way to empty out without stopping when the trouble has passed. They
will contribute nothing to your chances of not swimming unless
conditions were at that fine, unjudgable margin between just swamping &
just not swamping - of which, fat chance!
The shock & excitement of swamping & sinking in a big river having
passed, I'm sure the realisation of what might so easily have been the
outcome has replaced it. I know that arguments for rational safety
measures are tedious, but death, or the loss of valuable equipment, or
even the premature & inconvenient end of a planned trip & a good
soaking, can help bring even boring topics to life.
Many thanks for your excellent report on your trip.
Cheers -
bill
KC wrote:
> bill wrote:
> > Sure, you can sue the organiser, but if he has shown that the racers
> > agree that safe boats are their own responsibility, then that protects
> > the organiser.
>
> Bill, I think you live in the USA,
Yep :-) I have an ambiguous writing style;-)
>so I'm surprised you put so much
> faith in those forms we all fill out before every "risky" activity.
They work and they don't--both sides can hire lawyers. What I know is
that every year, people *die* at amusement parks, at beaches with
lifeguards, on little league fields and yet they do not shut down.
> waiviers are virutally a useless formality any more. A competent
> lawyer can overcome most waiver forms in court.
Some of them (USRowing for instance) look pretty stupid under the legal
microscope. Maybe that is a form of honesty--or ignorance.
>
> I presume this is why regatta officals check heelstraps and bowballs
> (not that this accomplishes much). If the waivers really held water
> (no pun) then the organizers would have no reason to care whatsoever
> whether a rower had proper heelstraps... except maybe out of
> compassion.
Well, that is an interesting point. The bowballs are useless for
anything but the incidental contact on the apron and so are meaningless
but are sanctioned by a *national* or even interenational (FISA) body,
and the heelstraps are too. That takes some burden off of the
organizer--now it is merely a "pass the buck" yes?
>
> Maybe you're right to some extent though. If the USCF can wash their
> hands of responsibility for tubular (aka sew-up?)
Yes. Sew-up = tubular. I once checked a friend's carbon aero front
wheel just before a big criterium held on (of all places) Pocono
Speedway, and I pulled it right off--no glue at all! I think I saved
him a nasty spill. (He went on to win.) This was a USCF sanctioned but
independently promoted event.
> tires, then why could
> the USRA not wash their hands of responsibility for heelstraps in every
> boat? Not that I'm suggesting this would be a good turn of events --
> I'm not -- but I do wonder why this seeming contradiction exists.
>
I think the devil is in the details. I think in the case of the USCF,
you have the national authority directly involved in the race
organization in some cases, whereas in the case of, say, HOS, you have
a private club (UBC) organizing the event.
-Bill
bill
Wilf,
It was very good of you to post your story. It takes some personal
fortitude to come forward to tell a story like this.
I think as Carl has suggested, it really should not happen any
more...there is no good reason--not economic, not engineerng--why a
boat should not be fitted with effective economic life saving flotation
in some fashion.
The outstanding thing about it is just how much of a dramatic
difference it makes to have reserve flotation. It is not a *little*
thing or a *refinement*; rather, it is a total radically safer vehicle.
In the world of sailing small boats, this whole issue was sorted out in
the late 1920's and even earlier. Look at old Uffa Fox drawings of
Brynhyld, the 20' dual sliding seat sailing canoe that he cruised to
Brittany from England, or of his World Champion 10 square meter canoes,
or his international (then National?) 14' Dinghies, which way back in
those days were put together with flotation chambers.
Take a 14 foot dinghy with no flotation, take it out on the Solent,
sail it from Portsmouth to the Yacht Club docks over on Isle of Wight
and you could quite easily come to grief. It is windy, a broad expanse
of water, not so warm except in July and August. You tip over, big
waves, boat swamped, weight of equipment too much to recover, water
coming up through the trunk....it's over.
Now take the *same* dinghy, and put chambers in it. Nobody will die.
It is extraordinary. Dinghy sailors now cover amazing distances in
boats that they can recover from swamping with. No pumps, just adequate
flotation.
This was figured out 80 years ago. It is positively mind-boggling to me
as a sailor and engineer that the rowing world just is not up to speed.
I mean, it is so simple. All it takes is a little education. It doen't
even take rules. It takes some peer pressure. You say to your fellows,
"You are going to do that it THAT?! You fools! Here, I know some people
and some places, we can get you set up better."
And even without carpentry, inflatable flotation bags are widely
available from British and Irish companies, as well as others in the
dinghy crazed nations (New Zealand, Australia...).
Thanks again for your informative post.
anto...@aol.com
I would be interested to know if you were aware of recent deaths in the
very type of boat and on the River you speak of. If you were not aware
please say and if you were how many of the others do you think were.
kda...@kidare.com
bill wrote:
> kda...@kidare.com wrote:
> SNIP
>
> > I am surprised the
> > organisers allowed non-buoyant boats to go afloat, especially, as Carl
> > mentions, a rower died on that river recently.
>
> If I were to be a race oraganiser, the last thing I would want to do is
> get involved in determining "fitness for use". That would open the
> organiser up for all sorts of horrible lawsuits--including criminal
> negligence.
>
If I were a race organiser, I might well agree. But I would also expect
it to be part of my remit to disallow boats from going afloat without
the most basic safety features. Here in the UK those features include
bow balls & heel restraints (and sometimes hatch covers). IMHO, in this
case they should also have included buoyancy chambers. The Rhine is
like the open sea sometimes, and as you say elsewhere in the thread,
seagoing dinghies have long understood the basic need for chambers.
Maybe I should have said "boats without buoyancy chambers" rather than
"non-buoyant boats".
> Better to lay the "fitness for use" question on the owners of the boats
> themselves. That is why the "waiver" you sign before the event.
>
I am sorry, but waivers don't float. If we are going to make the waiver
the general proviso, we might as well do away with all safety
requirements.
> Sure, you can sue the organiser, but if he has shown that the racers
> agree that safe boats are their own responsibility, then that protects
> the organiser.
>
I may well be wrong but I was under the impression that these waivers
would not stand up in court, especially if there was clear evidence of
negligence by organisers or coaches. Allowing boats to float without
the basic safety features to handle the conditions likely to be met
during the race is not far short of negligence, IMO.
But the most important thing is to learn, rather than point fingers. It
happened. I hope it doesn't happen again.
Regards
Kit
Mike Sullivan
"bill" <bi...@plattdesign.net> wrote in message
news:1147120708.2...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
snip
> Now take the *same* dinghy, and put chambers in it. Nobody will die.
> It is extraordinary. Dinghy sailors now cover amazing distances in
> boats that they can recover from swamping with. No pumps, just adequate
> flotation.
>
> This was figured out 80 years ago. It is positively mind-boggling to me
> as a sailor and engineer that the rowing world just is not up to speed.
>
> I mean, it is so simple. All it takes is a little education. It doen't
> even take rules. It takes some peer pressure. You say to your fellows,
> "You are going to do that it THAT?! You fools! Here, I know some people
> and some places, we can get you set up better."
It would an interesting study to figure out how the culture of
competitive rowing missed this.
Has it been a macho thing? Did the former lightweight wood
construction make it impractical?
People have been rowing and racing unsinkable dories through surf
and seas for a couple centuries, so it isn't through ignorance.
Carl Douglas
Non-buoyant singles are non-starters because a) they have so little
freeboard & such a high length-to-volume ratio there'd be almost nowhere
you could use them without swiftly filling up, b) capsizes in singles
are hardly rare & you do need your boat to support you
That said, here's a few reasons for rowing's tardy acceptance of the
benefits of real inbuilt buoyancy:
1. Crew shells, unlike sailing dinghies, were for sheltered waters &
very rarely capsize. In sheltered (i.e. conventionally rowable) waters
crew shells had enough freeboard to exclude most (not all) of the waves
in which they were traditionally used. Since most rowers have limited
understanding of water, if something does go wrong they then take it as
beyond human control. And most rowers see too few mishaps either to
understand the occasional brutality of the medium in which they perform
or to grasp the need for safer design.
2. Unlike sailing, rowing is not a sport to encourage bright designers
& informed discussion of equipment. Rowers are hard-working galley
slaves who seek to go faster by working even harder, & most rowers never
even get to steer a boat. They are not, as many sailors are, either
watermen or cunning/lazy folk versed in (or at least familiar with)
fluid mechanics & structural engineering who hope, by learning more
about the science, to tweak extra performance out of the elements. So
they feel free to ignore Archimedes, don't seek to "push the design
envelope", see no reason to involve mechanical science in their sport &
believe boats are the best they can be (except when told technobabble!).
3. In wooden shells, open lattice construction was thought elegant &
thus "advanced", when really it was fragile, lacked stiffness & saved no
weight. Having lots of enclosed compartments would have been seen as
backward, &, since the old single-veneer skins & subsequent tortured
plywood shells were very vulnerable to damage, & went out of shape when
split, having enclosed compartments impeded local hull repairs.
4. The old vision of the open shell as the perfect equipment persisted
into the first generations of glass-fibre & Kevlar shells, fitted out
with wood lattice internals. Then their builders saw that sheet
materials worked fine & offered real labour savings. But the old
customs had fostered the irrational beliefs that water had to be able to
move around the boat & that visible structure was heavy. Some early
composite shells did have enclosed compartments from the start, but
sloppy manufacturing left unsealed plywood cores to absorb water & rot
when water entered & sloppy crews left water within poorly-sealed
compartments. In the UK only one such manufacturer persisted with this
type of compartmentalised construction
5. Then there is the "macho thing". When you haven't yourself swamped &
swum, you think it a sign of going soft to worry about what might happen
if you did. Instead you pretend that swamping isn't dangerous. If
someone is killed, you pretend that it must have been their fault.
6. And then there are the sport's most senior administrators. Whatever
their virtues, they have certain fundamental flaws - almost to a man & a
woman, they know just about nothing about hydrostatics, fluid mechanics
& boat design &, similarly, they are clueless about modern safety
management. But they do believe that anyone who suggests they should
take a new approach towards shell flotation, or publish detailed (or
even summary) accident reports, or research rowing safety, or drop the
underlying blame culture, is a dangerous challenge to their authority.
My two pennies-worth -
Mike Sullivan
"Carl Douglas" <ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e3r2v1$fhg$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
> Mike Sullivan wrote:
>> "bill" <bi...@plattdesign.net> wrote in message
>> news:1147120708.2...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>
snip
> 3. In wooden shells, open lattice construction was thought elegant & thus
> "advanced", when really it was fragile, lacked stiffness & saved no
> weight. Having lots of enclosed compartments would have been seen as
> backward, &, since the old single-veneer skins & subsequent tortured
> plywood shells were very vulnerable to damage, & went out of shape when
> split, having enclosed compartments impeded local hull repairs.
Have you ever seen any closed compartment wood boats?
I'll ask Conn about it, I bet he's seen one somewhere.
Mike
Carl Douglas
No, I haven't. I started rowing in a clinker-built 8+, apparently built
circa 1875 for CUBC, a wide thing with off-set seats. IIRC it had thin
planks, maybe 6" wide, transverse under the slides instead of a lattice,
separated by similar or larger gaps, & there was no enclosure, except of
the bow & stern canvases. Nicely pointed, brass-shod & unprotected bow.
Barn-door stern-mounted rudder. Original riggers, converted to swivel
from fixed pins. For 11 & 12 yr olds is was extraordinarily heavy to
lift. And a bugger to row with those side seats if the crew weight was
not well balanced.
I rowed in that boat in the Spring after one of our colder winters, in
which the Thames had frozen solid upstream & people had driven cars on
the ice near Oxford. The ice was still breaking up and floating down
our stretch. Coach was on a bike. The river was running fast. I guess
if the boat had been damaged a few of us might not have survived. And
because the river was so high that our floating stage was above the
towpath we'd had to wade through several yards of icy water half-way up
our thighs to get afloat.
Happy days ?
> I'll ask Conn about it, I bet he's seen one somewhere.
>
Please let me know.
Cheers -
anto...@aol.com
Surely technically a CD 2x/2- is a closed compartment boat? Or should I
have read the rest of the thread.....
KC
anto...@aol.com wrote:
> Carl Douglas wrote:
> > Mike Sullivan wrote:
> > > Have you ever seen any closed compartment wood boats?
> > >
> >
> > No, I haven't.
>
> have read the rest of the thread.....
Or a recent other thread... CD boats are not entirely wooden. CD use
kevlar and carbon fiber in their hulls. I presume one of the many
benefits of which is that these composite layers can be used to make
air-tight bouyancy compartments. --much more difficult when you're
working with wood only.
-Kieran
Carl Douglas
Further to what Kieran has said:
In our construction - our original all-wood or our current wood/Kevlar
composites - all surfaces are multi-ply laminates, formed with resin
under heat & pressure into the required shapes leaving no internal
stress. In impact they are very hard to penetrate & do not change shape
if damaged. The design objective was the creation of a stiff, resilient
& impact-tolerant object. Materials & methods were chosen to achieve
that end.
A conventional wood construction, OTOH, starts start with sheet
materials which are forced into the end form & held there against
internal stress. The materials are selected or devised for their
formability first, their resilience second. Locking in internal
stresses reduces their impact resistance while the compromise on
properties impairs resilience. When damaged, the continuity which had
held the stressed shell in shape is breached & the consequent
rearrangement of the internal stresses pull things out of shape.
The waterproofness of internal compartments in all constructions depends
not on material but on an uninterrupted impermeable surface on the
internal, less-accessible surfaces. Traditional construction made it
hard to ensure such continuous impermeability, due to the methods of
construction & the relatively poor durability & impermeability of
traditional finishes. Well-designed & built moulded structures in all
materials are easily made wholly waterproof during construction, &
should then remain so. Even so, ventilation between outings is
desirable - to prevent condensate build-up & interesting biological
colonisation.
HTH
Carl Douglas
Errr, Wilf:
A little bird has just pointed my nose towards the following from RSR 3
months back:
http://tinyurl.com/nevvn
Do I detect a bit of deja vu all over again?
Cheers -
Car;
Wilf Williams
In that thread you wrote:
>You have the choice between potentially sinking in the old boat, &
>potentially getting unpleasantly wet legs in the new one. You're
>unlikely to die from rising damp of theh shin bones, so I suggest it's a
>bit of a no-brainer.
I agree with you, but I'm not in charge of who uses which boats for
what. As previously mentioned the cost, newness, and difficulty in
rigging up pumps in these BBG gigs meant that the use of these boats
became *out of the question*
So you were 100% correct, we sank, and thanks to the Feurwerke
(volunteer firemen) we are all ok.
And I'm still a no-brainer :)
Wilf
Carl Douglas
We're all a bit short on the grey stuff, else why would we row? ;)
Have you or did you show what I wrote in February, or what I wrote this
week, to the person whose irrational & technologically illiterate
reasoning kept that new, fully-buoyant boat on the rack? How did they
fool anyone that the new boat was too precious & "difficult" to equip
for use on the Rhine?. How did they decide that human lives, not to
mention the time, effort & risk for the Fire Brigade, mattered less than
a bit kit actually designed & built for such conditions?
Their inane decision, made despite the warning given by last year's
conditions, could so easily have cost several lives &, maybe, sucked
them & the club into litigation.
Those who may not previously have understood why it has been so
difficult to get NGBs to act over compulsory shell buoyancy now have in
this example a perfect insight into how self-important but ignorant
officials obstruct progress & endanger rower safety. I think whoever
blocked the use of that buoyant boat for an event in which sinking was a
known risk needs taking behind the bike sheds for a serious intellectual
debate.......
Carl
Carl Douglas
I wrote the above in response to the available information which, as
indicated, previous experience had shown to be very plausible.
I now understand that rather different, & wholly legitimate, reasons
prevented the use of the buoyant boat for this race. And I also
understand that donor funds are on offer within the club to help in
buying another buoyant boat.
Misunderstandings can arise in any discussion. In conversation it
usually goes no further, but on a world-wide newsroup it goes
everywhere. So please refrain from visiting the bike sheds on this
occasion (except for a crafty smoke).
That said, let's keep this event very firmly in mind as a valuable
lesson about the undesirability of rowing underbuoyant shells,
especially in such an event but in other supposedly calmer conditions
also. You think you have it all nicely under control, but a spot of
interesting water can suddenly prove you so horribly wrong.
Cheers -
Charles Carroll
Forgive me for being so thick, but I have a question or two.
Are multi-ply laminates the same thing as sheets of plywood? And if not, how
do they differ?
And you write that multi-ply laminates are formed "with resin under heat &
pressure into the required shapes leaving no internal stress." Assuming that
you are speaking of fibrous materials - i.e. wood, Kevlar, carbon fiber - am
I right to think that "internal stress" is the stress put on individual
fibers within these materials? How can you bend them without stressing some
of the fibers?
Cordially,
Charles
Carl Douglas
Plywood is a multi-ply laminate, pressed & bonded (moulded) to be a flat
sheet, even though the individual veneers may themselves not have been
entirely flat. If it is of the best quality, it will actually be a flat
sheet.
However, you can press & bond multiple thin layers of fibrous or
non-fibrous sheet materials (wood veneer, cloths, honeycomb cores, pvc
foams, polyethylene or even metal sheets) into non-flat forms and if the
job is done properly there will be little or no recoil when you demould
the product. Sure, each layer in the laminate has had to be deformed
during moulding, but the stresses induced in bending a thin layer are
trivial compared with those which result from generating the same
deformation in a thicker material. That's why thick steel bars are so
very much stiffer than individual bicycle spokes or even a loose bundle
of bike spokes containing the same cross-section of steel. But if you
were to bond those spokes together (OK, purists, I'm assuming hexagonal
cross-sections!), they'd then become as stiff as the thick bar. Another
consequence is that you can bend a thin sheet to a small radius whereas
trying to bend a thicker sheet to the same radius may cause it to break
- because the inner & outer layers of the thick laminate must contract
or stretch so very much more to accommodate that tight bend.
So, if you take a sheet of Kevlar fabric you can flap it around & fold
it like a piece of linen cloth - with minimal stress in the fibres. But
if you laminate a layer of the same cloth (Kevlar or linen) onto either
side of a thickness of some other material which is itself very flexible
(e.g. honeycomb), you then have a quite stiff panel (in the bending
sense), & the thicker the panel the very much stiffer it becomes.
However, although that panel is stiff against bending, its tensile
strength & stiffness along its length are effectively the same as those
of the cloth from which it was made (the resin makes but a small
contribution).
That's just an intro to structural laminates. On your visit to the UK,
& if you're a glutton for punishment, we can do the advanced course ;)
Cheers -
Stephen Blockley
"Wilf Williams" <pm_wi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147076658.6...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> the last few years, but thought that I would relate my experiences of
> the weekend here.
>
> My team started Saturdays EUREGA, a 100 km marathon on the Rhine. We
> used the same boat as last year. (I Posted a link to 2005 photo's
> recently)
> http://www.treviris.de/albums/view_album.php?set_albumName=eurega2005
>
> Unlike last year, this year was warm and sunny weather, benign
> conditions. We shipped a few biggish waves, this is normal on the
> Rhine, however the bilge pump dealt with the inflow. The boat was
> moving fine, and we were on schedule for a reasonable time, not a win,
> or a course record (broken this year by a mixed 4x at 4:57 !!)
>
> 45km into the race, just after Koblenz, there is an area of standing
> waves. Unfortunately it was here where we met three ships line a-breast
> coming up stream. Two passenger liners, and a double pusher barge. The
> waves were four feet high at least. The first wave hit, and the bow
> ploughed into the water, the second wave filled the boat, and third
> forth and fifth sank it. Game over in less than ten seconds. The boat,
> a non buoyant ancient wooden 4x, disappeared under out feet. We were
> left holding onto the sculls.
Wilf, many thanks for this posting. What you describe holds so many echoes
of what happened in Amposta, the differences being that the general weather
conditions were benign throughout, and, because this was a race, rescue was
quickly on hand. In Amposta the weather suddenly changed for the worse, and
there was no prospect of rescue by others. These two circumstances have been
common to several fatal rowing incidents, the latter often occurring because
the "safety" launches used in training don't cope with the bad weather
either, or are inadequate to rescue all immersed rowers in time.
> There were a few anxious calls to the safety boat on the other side (1
> km away) personally I was screaming "HELP" at the top of my voice. We
> waited in the water for a few minutes repeating to our each other to
> "stay with the boat" and to "breathe deeply".
As a matter of interest, did the many RSR discussions on stay-with-the-boat
and cold water immersion, and/or the information on the Leo website, help
you to know how best to cope with that terrifying ordeal? Or did you learn
what to do via another route?
The Amposta crews did not have appropriate safety training, and the ARA had
not provided the right safety information or regulation to its members. The
ARA had also not acted on specific advice about the risks of non-buoyant 4s
and 8s, which they received in writing from one of their own officers four
years prior to Leo's death. In addition there was no official collection,
collation or publication of accident data from previous fatalities, either
at national or international level. So no lessons were available to be
learned by the rowing public, and rowing governing bodies could act or not
act with impunity.
Many people, including ourselves and several who contribute to rsr, have
been working hard to improve rowing safety. So what has changed nationally
(UK) or internationally in the five and a half years since Amposta (as far
as we know)?
1) Certainly the club involved, along with Oxford University rowing in
general, has made genuine effort to improve safety training, but they are
looking to the ARA for clear guidance/regulation on certain issues, which is
not yet forthcoming.
2) FISA has for the first time produced detailed recommendations for
minimum safety guidelines to all NGBs, to include a workable clearly defined
minimum buoyancy standard for all boats. FISA's jurisdiction is limited, so
it is up to individual NGBs to decide whether or not to comply. However
FISA has amended their Rules of Racing so that all new boats competing in
FISA regulated events must comply with the FISA buoyancy standard from next
year - in fact most such boats are already compliant. Perhaps this example
at international competition will eventually filter down to domestic
rowing.
3) The ARA still does not provide the right safety information or clear
safety regulation for its members. They are at last working on it, but they
mostly seem to lack the expertise to get it right. They are hidebound by
their desire to distance themselves from any safety responsibility, so
maintain they can "only advise" rather than regulate on safety matters. This
is in spite of the fact that, as the Sport Minister's representative pointed
out in Parliament, their funding via Sport England relies on them properly
fulfilling their statutory responsibility for safety in rowing. He also
pointed out that the ARA has the means to enforce safety regulation, as the
ARA could strip non-compliant clubs of their affiliation, and stated that
more could, and should be done to improve rowing safety.
4) The ARA still has not acted effectively on boat buoyancy, arguing they
cannot regulate on equipment standards, or be involved in testing equipment
in any way. They dispute the FISA recommendation on buoyancy, and are
refusing to implement it.
5) As far as we know, there is still no official public accident database
available at any level, nationally or internationally.
6) The ARA has been officially and publicly criticised for their poor safety
policy by two UK Coroner's Courts, following 2 avoidable rowing related
fatalities.
7) Two rowing clubs in the USA are facing legal action from bereaved
families following avoidable rowing related fatalities.
8) Meanwhile, there continues to be numerous "near misses" involving
non-buoyant boats depositing their crews in life-threatening cold and
hostile water.
> As we waited the boat slowly resurfaced, from being able to touch it
> with my feet, I could see the hull, but it would not support our
> weight.
It sounds like your boat was a similar construction to those in Amposta.
You describe your boat as "sinking" and then, once empty of crew, rising
back up to barely "float", providing little or no support for the crew.
This is very similar to the description given by the two OULRC crews. As
you may remember, the ARA bizarrely disputed the idea that the boats "sank".
We're sure you would have no doubt that your boat did sink, and in doing so
ceased to perform its function as a boat.
>After what seemed like an eternity the safety boat arrived,
> and took us to the bank. Another zodiac rescued the boat, seats, and
> most of our possessions.
>
> 15 minutes after sinking we were sitting in the warm sunshine wrapped
> in hairy blankets, shivering, I was surprised how shocked I was, unlike
> the others I have been following the discussions here, so I could quite
> clearly see what the consequences could have been.
Thankfully you lived to tell the tale!
> snip
Jane and Stephen
David Biddulph
news:4cjv36F...@individual.net...
...
> 2) FISA has for the first time produced detailed recommendations for
> minimum safety guidelines to all NGBs, to include a workable clearly
> defined
> minimum buoyancy standard for all boats. FISA's jurisdiction is limited,
> so
> it is up to individual NGBs to decide whether or not to comply. However
> FISA has amended their Rules of Racing so that all new boats competing in
> FISA regulated events must comply with the FISA buoyancy standard from
> next
> year - in fact most such boats are already compliant.
Are you sure that's what they say, Stephen? My reading of the FISA rules of
racing would be merely that new boats from next year must carry a plaque
which shows *whether* the boats meets the FISA Guideline. Naturally we hope
that most will meet the Guideline, but the FISA rules don't seem to require
it.
From http://www.worldrowing.com/medias/docs/media_350404.pdf (Bye-law 1.10
to rule 31):
"
1.11 Boats constructed or delivered after 1st January 2007 must also show on
the production plaque (in 1.10 above) whether the boat meets "FISA's Minimum
Guidelines for the Safe Practice of Rowing": "A boat when full of water with
a crew of average weight equal to the design weight stated on the boat's
production plaque, seated in the rowing position should float such that the
top of the seat is a maximum of 5 cm below the static waterline."
"
It would be a brave cub, or federation, that bought a boat with a plaque
that said specifically that it doesn't meet the Guuidelines.
--
David Biddulph
Rowing web pages at
http://www.biddulph.org.uk/
Henning Lippke
> 5) As far as we know, there is still no official public accident database
> available at any level, nationally or internationally.
Is there an unofficial one, apart from the Leo website?
I've started one, but was asked to hold it back (at least that was what
I understood).
On the pro-side: Empacher now builds fully enclosed compartments in crew
boats as default.
Stephen Blockley
"David Biddulph" <da...@biddulph.org.uk> wrote in message
news:DeydnbVCoKG...@bt.com...
You are quite right David - our wording was misleading (sorry, it was a long
day). As a matter of interest we were party to some of the FISA discussion
papers while they developed their minimum flotation standard. They
consulted widely amongst NGBs and boatbuilders worldwide, and their "concept
rule" was that "National Federations must ensure that every boat built from
2006 onwards, starting in an international regatta or FISA Championship must
display a buoyancy certificate that confirms the boat meets the (FISA)
buoyancy specifications..."
FISA also speculated that "national federations would most likely copy this
FISA "rule" in their national rules which would then get to national,
regional and local events and, eventually, to the clubs for "insurance and
liability" reasons". However they recognised that their actual jurisdiction
was limited to equipment used in international competition. We also
understand that one boatbuilder seemed to object on the grounds that the
FISA rule would clash with existing European law (not true). We guess it
was a bit of a balancing act to try to bring everyone along with the idea.
> It would be a brave cub, or federation, that bought a boat with a plaque
> that said specifically that it doesn't meet the Guuidelines.
We have no doubt that by establishing their minimum safety guidelines FISA's
firm intention was to promote improved safety, including their recognised
buoyancy standard, at ALL levels of rowing, not just international or
national events. We first approached FISA regarding buoyancy in late 2002,
and were kept informed of the progress of their discussions. Their
deliberations were lengthy and wide ranging, and they considered, amongst
other things, the data in our website accident database as part of the
evidence. This was not a rash or hasty step, but one developed by several
expert committees, and approved by FISA Congress. So, it beggars belief
that the ARA chooses not to adopt the FISA standard, taking the view
(according to Mr Harris) that the ARA stance on buoyancy is superior!
Having already ignored a warning on buoyancy in 1996, ten years later the
ARA are repeating that same mistake.
Jane and Stephen
Wilf Williams
>As a matter of interest, did the many RSR discussions on stay-with-the-boat
>and cold water immersion, and/or the information on the Leo website, help
>you to know how best to cope with that terrifying ordeal? Or did you learn
>what to do via another route?
Jane and Stephen,
I have actually follwed the debate over the last year or so, My club
recently introduced the rule that we should all read and understand the
coldwater survival guide. We had the German translation. I 'know' that
this guide was burned into my memory.Following the discussions here
definately made me aware of what to do. The dreadfull incident at
Amposta definately was in my mind as the rescue was going on. I don't
mind admitting that I had shock, as I sat on the bank I had a quiet
thought about Leo.
I can definately say that that your persistance in this matter helped
my crew.
What I don't like about r.s.r is that sometimes the personalities are
getting in the way of the issue, its much too serious to let it disolve
into a slanging match. Especially not over the internet Carl.
Picket ARA HQ, Do some 'sinking' Demos in the river opposite ARA HQ.
Wilf
Carl Douglas
So: you've been watching for a year. But the buoyancy issue has been
live on RSR for 6 years, since I first raised it.
It is because, inter alia, we have kept the issue alive here that we
have made progress. Another reason is becasue leo died. And, had you
died on the Rhine, we'd also have raised that sad event as further cause
for real action. Are you really telling me that personalities, i.e. the
sensitive toes of others, matter more than the saving of human lives?
What we say may not be always be liked, Wilf, but it certainly can't be
faulted for accuracy. Which is precisely why I wrote a swift follow-up
to my own post, when I learned that information _you'd_ provided was
somewhat inaccurate, that your club had made big efforts on cold-water
immersion training & that there were people in your club ready to fund a
buoyant shell. You see, I have friends & contacts at all levels, right
across the rowing world, who know that I care about getting things
right. And when a friend has been misrepresented because of what
someone else has said, I care even more. OK?
>
> Picket ARA HQ
NO. You go & picket the ARA. And please don't tell busy people how to
spend their zero leisure time.
Do some 'sinking' Demos in the river opposite ARA HQ.
That has been done with alarming frequency over the years, right outside
ARA HQ & for several miles in either direction, by crews which never
meant, any more than you ever meant, to end up immersed & scared
shitless in cold & turbulent waters. And how much notice has the ARA
ever taken of it? None whatsoever.
Sorry if that response seems a little crusty, but Usenet has a
long-established tradition of people speaking simply & directly & I
ain't about to depart from it any time soon.
Wilf Williams
It is crusty ! Familiar with USENET, and r.s.r My first post here
"Fri, Mar 3 2000", I'm not about to repeat *private* discussions here
about funding, so like everyone else involved in a 'discussion' with
you I'll just shut up, and go back to lurking. After all r.s.r is run
by you isn't it ?
Wilf
Carl Douglas
OK, it's crusty, as I said. However, it is far from crusty to correct
erroneous information.
Nobody has repeated, or will repeat, a private conversation. But I will
act with alacrity on information received to correct a situation where
what I have posted here upon the basis of apparently incorrect
information. I made my correction as tactfully as I could, & you could
have written in private to discuss the points made rather than as you
have done here. If you dislike my wish to keep the record straight in
this way, I can't help you.
I do consider deeply it regrettable that your words in public, above,
leave the clear sense that, were you to repeat a certain private
discussion, then that would correct me & show you were right & that
someone else known to us both had misled me on the buoyancy & funding
issues in your club. That is something you can say to me in private &
know that it goes no further, but it is not something that you should
make public here or even hint at, any more than you should attack me as
you have above for exposing an apparent conflict of evidence.
To revert briefly to the real topic, if you don't mind:
I was very shocked to learn of your apparently rather close shave, &
very concerned for you and your colleagues. I'm sorry that my practical
response to your personal mishap should have led you to mount this
attack on me & I do not understand why. I was concerned for you and
your colleagues, and for the lessons for the rest of us, & that remains
the case. Unfortunately, the best you could manage in response to some
deeper probing & fact checking was some gratuitous advice on how I might
waste my time outside the ARA.
:(
anto...@aol.com
Well lets hope you don't push everyone away from RSR like Your mate did
over on the Canoe site. It is effectively dead due to concentration on
one particular topic by one particular person.
Mike Sullivan
<anto...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1147735338.8...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
snip
> Well lets hope you don't push everyone away from RSR like Your mate did
> over on the Canoe site. It is effectively dead due to concentration on
> one particular topic by one particular person.
Oh puhleeze, Anton.
you GOT to be kidding. This is RSR, not some zit bleeding
hang wringing knitted brow perspiring nosebleed teary
armpit shaving wimpy simpering eyebrow plucking pleading
doe-eyed goose pimply mirror checking saggy butt
latte sipping henpecked pussy gaggle of loser
conservatives.
It's a ROWING group. Paddling topics are permissible,
but not paddling attitudes where the fastest one goes to
the Olys and everybody else quits and takes up triathlon.
:^)
Mike
anto...@aol.com
Not kidding at all actually Mike.
Carl Douglas
Nor is Mike. Anton, count again the number of threads & contributors &
quitp trying to close down what you dislike. Better still, why not make
a positive contribution instead of so much carping :)
Charles Carroll
You are going to think that I have lost my mind, but I actually find the
subject of structural laminates fascinating.
I have always been fascinated with the endless inventiveness of the human
mind. I love to watch people come up with different solutions to the same
problem and then explain the reasons for their solutions.
Take the problem of materials, which we have just been discussing. In
constructing fine shells a boat builder needs to find materials that are
light, strong, stiff, durable, resilient, and impact resistant. Forgive me
if I have left out other qualities. The only point I am trying to make is
how boat builders have done this over years and years, and the different
solutions they have come up with.
I hope we have some time to discuss next month when I am in the UK.
Cordially,
Charles
Carl Douglas
> Carl,
>
> You are going to think that I have lost my mind, but I actually find the
> subject of structural laminates fascinating.
I can already hear lurkers & Anton murmuring, "Sad gits", about folk
like us who find structures interesting? Any more of this & they'll be
telling us to take it off RSR because it is driving people away. ;)
>
> I have always been fascinated with the endless inventiveness of the human
> mind. I love to watch people come up with different solutions to the same
> problem and then explain the reasons for their solutions.
>
> Take the problem of materials, which we have just been discussing. In
> constructing fine shells a boat builder needs to find materials that are
> light, strong, stiff, durable, resilient, and impact resistant. Forgive me
> if I have left out other qualities. The only point I am trying to make is
> how boat builders have done this over years and years, and the different
> solutions they have come up with.
You use whatever you can, to do the best you can, using whatever science
you know, & that way you get a range of solutions to the same problem.
>
> I hope we have some time to discuss next month when I am in the UK.
>
Not _all_ month on structures, Charles?
anto...@aol.com
On the contrary Carl. I question only your methods of information
delivery, never the information delivered. As I have stated before, as
a coach who perhaps coached by feel and eye, I find your technical and
scientific knowledge both informative and interesting (and supportive
of my own opinion mostly). It is something that should be more the
concentration on here. You clearly do not actively coach much, but you
could add a lot of value in a coach educational environment at any
level. KC and Paul despite their recent disagreements I believe would
probably enjoy each others company and a beer and are also very
interesting.
I do not allow my teams (work) to use e mail as much as possible
because sentiment is never well communicated by writing. Clearly plenty
of miscommunication goes on on here.
Carl Douglas
>
> On the contrary Carl. I question only your methods of information
> delivery, never the information delivered. As I have stated before, as
> a coach who perhaps coached by feel and eye, I find your technical and
> scientific knowledge both informative and interesting (and supportive
> of my own opinion mostly). It is something that should be more the
> concentration on here. You clearly do not actively coach much, but you
> could add a lot of value in a coach educational environment at any
> level. KC and Paul despite their recent disagreements I believe would
> probably enjoy each others company and a beer and are also very
> interesting.
>
> I do not allow my teams (work) to use e mail as much as possible
> because sentiment is never well communicated by writing. Clearly plenty
> of miscommunication goes on on here.
>
I am sure that we would all greatly enjoy & benefit from each others'
company over a jar or 3 of our chosen poisons (although I think my
friend Paul is a fairly sober guy, which is of course no crime).
However, a cardinal rule of good friendship is never to seek to correct
a friend's copious character defects. A real friend is valued for
substance rather than style.
Some folk do have problems with communicating by email & Usenet. They
should learn to think twice, write once, review, revise & send only when
sure. You may properly instruct an employee or team member on his/her
email technique. To proffer such advice to a seasoned & careful
correspondent would be quite improper. Coaching of style & technique is
best kept to the gym & the boat.
Now, about this Rhine sinking......