New thoughts on bow loader 4s & buoyancy

New thoughts on bow loader 4s & buoyancy

Post by Katy Camero » Tue, 26 Mar 2002 20:17:04


Quote:


> > It was demonstrated by a British 2+ not so long ago when they were still
> > used at the Olympics that there is conclusive evidence that bow loaders
> > cause coxes to weep uncontrollably.

> Cue a gratuitous picture of our College old boys 2+ at a recent event (the
> chap in the middle was a sub). The cox looks happy enough.

> http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/rowing/rsmt011a.jpg

I was thinking the cox looked a little dazed and slightly out of it...

KT

 
 
 

New thoughts on bow loader 4s & buoyancy

Post by Nick Sues » Wed, 27 Mar 2002 16:48:24


Quote:
> I do enjoy these frank, open but amicable exchanges we have on RSR.  But
> haven't we rather moved away from the discussion topic: the horrendous
> lack of buoyancy of bowloaders?

Carl, we all know about that already, and it's patently self-evident to
anyone with an elementary grasp of Archimedes. But the bow loader fraternity
has always been happy to dismiss cox's safety issues ahead of the arguable
contention that it makes a four go faster, and unless and until the various
authorities decide that with effect from some future date coxed events may
only be rowed in stern coxed boats, nothing will change. Was it the cox who
drowned in a bow loader in the incident you referred to earlier, Carl? How
many others have lost their lives this way? Does anyone have facts and
figures? But as the Leo Blockley case shows, one death doesn't appear to be
enough to galvanise officialdom into action, and it's hard to know at what
level of plurality of fatality things start to change. After all, it's
always presumed it will be someone else's son, daughter, brother, sister,
husband, wife, whatever, who winds up doing the dying.

On Saturday night, less than 10km from where I sit at this moment, a famous
international cricketer forfeited his golden future to death at the age of
24 when his Porsche left the road on a 40km/h off-ramp from an 80km/h
section of inner urban freeway. The almost total destruction of the vehicle
displayed in news pictures must surely be consistent with an impact speed
hugely in excess of those numbers. Yet when the head of the vehicle
manufacturing industry association was interviewed yesterday on national
radio and asked why current TV advertising campaigns for cars almost without
exception glorified excessive speed, in direct defiance of the guidelines
issued by the government standards authority, he gave total non-answers
talking about the wonderful achievements the industry had made in improving
"drivability and survivability", and the interviewer was completely unable
to get him to utter the word "speed". I use this non-rowing example to
illustrate that once powerful vested interests perceive that they are under
threat, the life of the individual citizen, albeit a member of their own
clientele, is of precious little account. We are all viewed as cannon
fodder, and it's hardly surprising that Carl and the Blockleys are having
such difficulty making headway in their campaign for improved boat safety.

Sorry if I sound defeatist, but I have recently been corresponding with
someone very dear to me over the drowning death (nothing to do with rowing)
of a 19 year old. It was silly, dumb, so avoidable, and as I grow older I
look at how many people close to me, including my own brother, have died
needless, pointless deaths on the road or in the water, and wonder whether
any of the painfully evident lessons ever get learnt. I'm feeling depressed,
and wonder why the good die young and miserable old farts like me survive to
be ever more bitter and twisted.

 
 
 

New thoughts on bow loader 4s & buoyancy

Post by Anu Dudhi » Wed, 27 Mar 2002 17:46:27

One just for the old farts, then (exert from Oxford Rowing, by
Rev W E Sherwood, published in1900):

"1845 saw the general introduction into Oxford of outrigged boats, an
innovation viewed with much alarm by the University authorities, who issued the
following notice, signed by the Vice Chancellor:-

REGULATIONS FOR BOATS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF MEMBERS OF THE UNIVERSITY

`All skiffs or boats constructed for less than four oars, of which the rowlocks
are projected from the sides by means of outriggers (commonly called
`Clasper-built boats'), and all skiffs or boats constructed for one or for two
pairs of sculls, or for two oars only, of which the stern-post shall be less
than eight inches in depth measured perpendiculary, are to be fitted, both
forward and aft, with a sufficient deck or covering made of wood or of
waterproof canvas, and terminated within board by water-tight bulkheads.' "

 
 
 

New thoughts on bow loader 4s & buoyancy

Post by Kit Davi » Wed, 27 Mar 2002 22:49:55

<snip>

Quote:
> Sorry if I sound defeatist, but I have recently been corresponding with
> someone very dear to me over the drowning death (nothing to do with rowing)
> of a 19 year old. It was silly, dumb, so avoidable, and as I grow older I
> look at how many people close to me, including my own brother, have died
> needless, pointless deaths on the road or in the water, and wonder whether
> any of the painfully evident lessons ever get learnt. I'm feeling depressed,
> and wonder why the good die young and miserable old farts like me survive to
> be ever more bitter and twisted.

Nick, I think you've encountered the fickleness of human nature. For
another example, look at investing money. All the sensible people can
give you sensible low-risk ways of making money, that is a moderate
amount at a moderate rate. Yet when The Big New Thing comes along, how
many people, who would have previously been happy with a moderate
amount at a moderate rate, suddenly get greedy and jump on board. Some
who jump may be *lucky* & do well, others get badly burned, to go away
wiser and more cautious, warning others of the dangers. But they
remain unheeded because every new generation is as greedy as the last,
and greedy people ignore wise people and so don't learn.

This applies just as well to fast cars, or boats, where the greed
isn't for profit, but the thrill of speed or victory.

Sport, like life, is a fight between self-fulfilment and
self-preservation. The trick is to decide which one to back and when.

Kit

 
 
 

New thoughts on bow loader 4s & buoyancy

Post by marc » Thu, 28 Mar 2002 01:58:36

It seems to me that most of the people agree on the basic issues.  The
boat, right now, are not safe and we need to make them safer.  I think
that the cox safety (as anybody else in the boat) is an important
issue.  I don't think that eliminating the bow coxed 4+ is the answer.
 It is a very helpful boat to give to novice coxes where they can
learn the "art of steering".  Also it is unrealistic to think that
they will eliminate the bow loaded 4+.  But personally I don't care if
they get rid of the bow coxed 4+.  From the coaching point of view, it
is the same if everybody has to deal with the same problem.  In my
humble opinion, the real answer would be making the boats safer.  It
is the same issue that we have regarding the buoyancy, we need rules
that put boat builder in the condition of taking care of the safety
problems.  So built in buoyancy chambers and egress facilitate for bow
coxed 4+ and everything else we need to make this sport safer must be
impose from above otherwise all this discussion is a waste of time.  I
really think we have the chance to do something if we really work
together and we try to be a little more flexible.
My best to all of you

M

PS (yes even to Nick "Bollocks" Suess and Andrew "Bollocks" Trimble I
hope they will solve their problem of patents really soon)

 
 
 

New thoughts on bow loader 4s & buoyancy

Post by Andrew Trimb » Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:07:20

Quote:
> It seems to me that most of the people agree on the basic issues.  The
> boat, right now, are not safe and we need to make them safer.  I think
> that the cox safety (as anybody else in the boat) is an important
> issue.  I don't think that eliminating the bow coxed 4+ is the answer.
>  It is a very helpful boat to give to novice coxes where they can
> learn the "art of steering".  

Possibly the only part of this post I have any issue with at all- It
helps peopel to learn to ster straight but in narrow conditions (such
as lots of UK reivers, can't vouch for elsewhere) it can get a bit
hairy when a cox can't see exactly how wide the blades are stretching.

Also it is unrealistic to think that

Quote:
> they will eliminate the bow loaded 4+.

No, I don't see it happening any time soon.

Quote:
> But personally I don't care if
> they get rid of the bow coxed 4+.  From the coaching point of view, it
> is the same if everybody has to deal with the same problem.  In my
> humble opinion, the real answer would be making the boats safer.

We're all with you on that one!  We just got a bit sidetracked with
the old "coxes, why?" question...

Quote:
> It
> is the same issue that we have regarding the buoyancy, we need rules
> that put boat builder in the condition of taking care of the safety
> problems.  So built in buoyancy chambers and egress facilitate for bow
> coxed 4+ and everything else we need to make this sport safer must be
> impose from above otherwise all this discussion is a waste of time.

Sounds about right to me.

Quote:
> really think we have the chance to do something if we really work
> together and we try to be a little more flexible.

I think we got two threads confused here:

1) Boat safety is something about which we shouldn't need to be
flexible: we should be trying to make boats and rowing as safe as
possible (yes within reason I know, it's the basic principle I'm
talking about).

2) Usefulness of coxes, liking hating bowloaders etc. On this one
well, I may be irrascible, unnecessarily defensive and all the rest,
but I will at least always listen to what the other person has to say.
 And then most likely promptly disagree, but then no one's perfect...
;o)

Quote:
> My best to all of you

> M

And the same to you,
A

Quote:
> PS (yes even to Nick "Bollocks" Suess and Andrew "Bollocks" Trimble I
> hope they will solve their problem of patents really soon)

Lordy, don't start calling me that!  Then Nick really will have cause
for complaint!!
 
 
 

New thoughts on bow loader 4s & buoyancy

Post by Nick Sues » Fri, 29 Mar 2002 10:16:32

Quote:
> > PS (yes even to Nick "Bollocks" Suess and Andrew "Bollocks" Trimble I
> > hope they will solve their problem of patents really soon)

> Lordy, don't start calling me that!  Then Nick really will have cause
> for complaint!!

Nah. My bollocks are vastly better than Andrew's any day of the week!
 
 
 

New thoughts on bow loader 4s & buoyancy

Post by Richard Packe » Sat, 30 Mar 2002 08:12:45


Quote:
> > > PS (yes even to Nick "Bollocks" Suess and Andrew "Bollocks" Trimble I
> > > hope they will solve their problem of patents really soon)

> > Lordy, don't start calling me that!  Then Nick really will have cause
> > for complaint!!

> Nah. My bollocks are vastly better than Andrew's any day of the week!

It worries me that you have sufficient data to make the comparison.

Richard

 
 
 

New thoughts on bow loader 4s & buoyancy

Post by Carl Dougla » Sat, 30 Mar 2002 04:58:47


Quote:
>One just for the old farts, then (exert from Oxford Rowing, by
>Rev W E Sherwood, published in1900):

>"1845 saw the general introduction into Oxford of outrigged boats, an
>innovation viewed with much alarm by the University authorities, who issued the
>following notice, signed by the Vice Chancellor:-

>REGULATIONS FOR BOATS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF MEMBERS OF THE UNIVERSITY

>`All skiffs or boats constructed for less than four oars, of which the rowlocks
>are projected from the sides by means of outriggers (commonly called
>`Clasper-built boats'), and all skiffs or boats constructed for one or for two
>pairs of sculls, or for two oars only, of which the stern-post shall be less
>than eight inches in depth measured perpendiculary, are to be fitted, both
>forward and aft, with a sufficient deck or covering made of wood or of
>waterproof canvas, and terminated within board by water-tight bulkheads.' "

Very apposite, Anu.

How good to learn from the Oxford's esteemed Atmospheric Physics dept
that old farts were, once upon a time, not entirely composed of hot air.
And to learn of intelligent official concern about crew safety in 1900.
I wonder why they stopped at singles, doubles & pairs?

How sad to note, however, that safety provision has barely advanced, &
in some cases (bowloaders) retreated, during the last 102 years.

Doesn't say much for us lot, does it?

Carl

Carl Douglas Racing Shells        -
    Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JZ, UK

URLs:  www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)

 
 
 

New thoughts on bow loader 4s & buoyancy

Post by Anu Dudhi » Sat, 30 Mar 2002 18:52:50

Quote:

> And to learn of intelligent official concern about crew safety in 1900.

Actually 1845. Sherwood (writing in 1900) unfortunately goes on to say
"These rules, or possibly some others issued earlier, were not altogether
acceptable to the boating men"