29 Aug 2006 22:03:44
Joseph Meehan
Buying a boat 102? USA

OK, I have my choices narrowed down. Now comes the next step.

When buying a car, the sticker price is a starting point. How does that
work when buying a new boat? Anyone want to share their experiences?

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit




30 Aug 2006 01:06:40
martin123@carr12331.freeserve.
Re: Buying a boat 102? USA


Joseph Meehan wrote:
> OK, I have my choices narrowed down. Now comes the next step.
>
> When buying a car, the sticker price is a starting point. How does that
> work when buying a new boat? Anyone want to share their experiences?
>
> --
> Joseph Meehan
>
> Dia duit

I'm not sure you can make comparisons. I bought my current boat in 2001
and at the time the exchange rate between Sterling and the Euro was
very much in Sterling's favour. As a result its probably now worth
about 80% of what I paid for it. I've had two reasonably good quality
sculling boats before which I had got good prices for when I sold them
so the actual capital put into the next boat was quite modest.



03 Sep 2006 10:23:31
oarsman
Re: Buying a boat 102? USA

With many boat manufacturers there is no negotiation. If price is a
consideration, tell them. I've known of people to defer partial price
until the ability to pay. If you are down to a couple of boats, tell
them what boats you are down to, and the price of the boats. Don't be
surprised when they don't budge. Try getting them to throw in a hat
and a tee shirt. This isn't car shopping, it's more about
relationships, be honest with the vendor about your intentions. About
the only time I ever seen a "deal" is with the purchase of several
eights at one time.


Joseph Meehan wrote:
> OK, I have my choices narrowed down. Now comes the next step.
>
> When buying a car, the sticker price is a starting point. How does that
> work when buying a new boat? Anyone want to share their experiences?
>
> --
> Joseph Meehan
>
> Dia duit



14 Sep 2006 23:41:27
Joseph Meehan
Re: Buying a boat 102? USA

Joseph Meehan wrote:
> OK, I have my choices narrowed down. Now comes the next step.
>
> When buying a car, the sticker price is a starting point. How
> does that work when buying a new boat? Anyone want to share their
> experiences?

Thanks everyone who replied. My new boat (A WinTech International) was
delivered today.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit




15 Sep 2006 09:35:15
Re: Buying a boat 102? USA


Joseph Meehan wrote:
> Joseph Meehan wrote:
> > OK, I have my choices narrowed down. Now comes the next step.
> >
> > When buying a car, the sticker price is a starting point. How
> > does that work when buying a new boat? Anyone want to share their
> > experiences?
>
> Thanks everyone who replied. My new boat (A WinTech International) was
> delivered today.
>
> --
> Joseph Meehan
>
> Dia duit

Perhaps you can give us an idea of what your final decision was based
on. As well as what the actual answers to your questions was.

- Paul Smith



22 Sep 2006 15:04:34
Joseph Meehan
Re: Buying a boat 102? USA

paul_v_smith@hotmail.com wrote:
> Joseph Meehan wrote:
>> Joseph Meehan wrote:
>>> OK, I have my choices narrowed down. Now comes the next step.
>>>
>>> When buying a car, the sticker price is a starting point. How
>>> does that work when buying a new boat? Anyone want to share their
>>> experiences?
>>
>> Thanks everyone who replied. My new boat (A WinTech
>> International) was delivered today.
>>
>> --
>> Joseph Meehan
>>
>> Dia duit
>
> Perhaps you can give us an idea of what your final decision was based
> on. As well as what the actual answers to your questions was.
>
> - Paul Smith

My final decision was based on rowing a boat in the same series as the
International design. I found it "comfortable" and it also felt more
efficient. I have not been disappointed.

I suspect some part of my "feelings" about the boat are do to the way it
is/was rigged.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit




22 Sep 2006 10:08:44
Re: Buying a boat 102? USA


Joseph Meehan wrote:
> paul_v_smith@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Joseph Meehan wrote:
> >> Joseph Meehan wrote:
> >>> OK, I have my choices narrowed down. Now comes the next step.
> >>>
> >>> When buying a car, the sticker price is a starting point. How
> >>> does that work when buying a new boat? Anyone want to share their
> >>> experiences?
> >>
> >> Thanks everyone who replied. My new boat (A WinTech
> >> International) was delivered today.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Joseph Meehan
> >>
> >> Dia duit
> >
> > Perhaps you can give us an idea of what your final decision was based
> > on. As well as what the actual answers to your questions was.
> >
> > - Paul Smith
>
> My final decision was based on rowing a boat in the same series as the
> International design. I found it "comfortable" and it also felt more
> efficient. I have not been disappointed.
>
> I suspect some part of my "feelings" about the boat are do to the way it
> is/was rigged.
>
> --
> Joseph Meehan
>
> Dia duit

Could you share the rigging numbers?

I've been experimenting a bit lately, and went what I would consider
very wide (164cm Span, 89cm inboard, 300cm Large C2 Macon), but it had
a great feeling of naturalness (word?), and the results seem to be
quite good so far. This was a change from 158/86/286 ApexRx which
seemed to have good and bad days, depending on things which I can not
determine.

TIA,
Paul "What fine motor skills?" Smith



22 Sep 2006 11:19:09
Mike Sullivan
Re: Buying a boat 102? USA


<paul_v_smith@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1158944924.212495.255850@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Joseph Meehan wrote:
>> paul_v_smith@hotmail.com wrote:

snip
>
> I've been experimenting a bit lately, and went what I would consider
> very wide (164cm Span, 89cm inboard, 300cm Large C2 Macon), but it had
> a great feeling of naturalness (word?), and the results seem to be
> quite good so far. This was a change from 158/86/286 ApexRx which
> seemed to have good and bad days, depending on things which I can not
> determine.

Great to see someone trying that!

Just eyeballing it from here it seems like a very heavy workload, though. I
think
you want an inboard of more like 92+, which still gives a reasonable cross
over and with full slide travel allow you to finish the stroke w/ hands
closer to your
body.

162, 90, 300 was not an uncommon range of rig for big guys
in the 1970s, that was heavier wood oars and macon blades (less load)

Mike




22 Sep 2006 23:02:08
Ewoud Dronkert
Re: Buying a boat 102? USA

Mike Sullivan wrote:
> <paul_v_smith@hotmail.com> wrote
>> I've been experimenting a bit lately, and went what I would consider
>> very wide (164cm Span, 89cm inboard, 300cm Large C2 Macon)
>
> Just eyeballing it from here it seems like a very heavy workload, though.

164 cm is very wide, 89 is not extremely short and macons have more slip
than big blades. All in all, it seems fairly light to me.

--
E. Dronkert


22 Sep 2006 14:16:11
Mike Sullivan
Re: Buying a boat 102? USA


"Ewoud Dronkert" <firstname@lastname.net.invalid > wrote in message
news:45144f51$0$4525$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> Mike Sullivan wrote:
>> <paul_v_smith@hotmail.com> wrote
>>> I've been experimenting a bit lately, and went what I would consider
>>> very wide (164cm Span, 89cm inboard, 300cm Large C2 Macon)
>>
>> Just eyeballing it from here it seems like a very heavy workload, though.
>
> 164 cm is very wide, 89 is not extremely short and macons have more slip
> than big blades. All in all, it seems fairly light to me.

oops

I misread what Paul clearly wrote "Large C2 Macon" to
be "Large C2 Hatchet", so you're right, it's not as
extreme load as I first suggested.

Still seems heavy, and could still give more inboard
and crossover.





22 Sep 2006 23:42:19
Ewoud Dronkert
Re: Buying a boat 102? USA

Mike Sullivan wrote:
> Still seems heavy, and could still give more inboard
> and crossover.

You do agree: wider span = shorter reach = lighter load..?


--
E. Dronkert


22 Sep 2006 15:07:46
Re: Buying a boat 102? USA


Mike Sullivan wrote:
> "Ewoud Dronkert" <firstname@lastname.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:45144f51$0$4525$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> > Mike Sullivan wrote:
> >> <paul_v_smith@hotmail.com> wrote
> >>> I've been experimenting a bit lately, and went what I would consider
> >>> very wide (164cm Span, 89cm inboard, 300cm Large C2 Macon)
> >>
> >> Just eyeballing it from here it seems like a very heavy workload, though.
> >
> > 164 cm is very wide, 89 is not extremely short and macons have more slip
> > than big blades. All in all, it seems fairly light to me.
>
> oops
>
> I misread what Paul clearly wrote "Large C2 Macon" to
> be "Large C2 Hatchet", so you're right, it's not as
> extreme load as I first suggested.
>
> Still seems heavy, and could still give more inboard
> and crossover.

This notion of "Light" and "Heavy", as well as "slip" seem to be
variables that have a lot more to do with simply
Span/inboard/Length/Blade type.

For example:
Load = Whatever pressure I choose to put on the handles.
Slip = Who really can measure this? Though we can certainly see the
wash-out when there is too much. This must vary considerably depending
on the blade work. And while slip may not reduce the Load it would
reduce the Impulse.

I've seen the term "impulse" used to describe the avg force over the
entire drive, but that would also have a time component which should
vary along with the "gearing" since that should have some relationship
with the distance travelled during the drive, the time of the drive,
and the angle through which the oarshaft travelled.

Is there a way of figuring out, from the Outboard and total shaft angle
travelled during the drive, the distance that the boat moved during the
drive? At first glance it looks like a simple geometry problem, but
after doing that math, the answer seems far shorter than what I would
have expected. The FISA rigging booklet has a diagram of this very
thing, but it conflicts with other illustrations, mainly in the area of
slip, which it puts sternward of the blade tip entry point, whereas
other illustrations put slip bowward of the blade tip entry point, this
makes for a large difference in the distance travelled (which should be
equal to pin displacement).

Can't wait for the pedantic to jump all over what must be a misuse (or
abuse) of terms. [;o)

- Paul Smith



22 Sep 2006 15:31:00
Mike Sullivan
Re: Buying a boat 102? USA


"Ewoud Dronkert" <firstname@lastname.net.invalid > wrote in message
news:451458bb$0$4522$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> Mike Sullivan wrote:
>> Still seems heavy, and could still give more inboard
>> and crossover.
>
> You do agree: wider span = shorter reach = lighter load..?

if you mean shorter reach = less arc? yes. But I look
at the capability of reach of the sculler from catch
to finish as fixed at any time I'm adjusting rig. Sculler
can compress so much, and finishes to an optimum spot.

I look at leverage of inboard/outboard for load, and
span for the arc.

keeping load on oar same and pushing out span lightens
load by making arc smaller.

Shortening the inboard will increase the arc and give
less leverage on the pin, thus increasing load, while
also possibly negatively affecting optimum finish position
depending on how much adjustment made.

Basically 164/89 doesn't have enough crossover though
it's not extreme. If they're rowing shorter
than their physiological optimum, they will actually row
with less load than the rig allows, they can set footboard
to have an optimum finish and be a bit shorter at the catch end.







22 Sep 2006 16:00:32
Mike Sullivan
Re: Buying a boat 102? USA


<paul_v_smith@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1158962866.119168.78340@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Mike Sullivan wrote:
>> "Ewoud Dronkert" <firstname@lastname.net.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:45144f51$0$4525$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>> > Mike Sullivan wrote:
>> >> <paul_v_smith@hotmail.com> wrote
>> >>> I've been experimenting a bit lately, and went what I would consider
>> >>> very wide (164cm Span, 89cm inboard, 300cm Large C2 Macon)
>> >>
>> >> Just eyeballing it from here it seems like a very heavy workload,
>> >> though.
>> >
>> > 164 cm is very wide, 89 is not extremely short and macons have more
>> > slip
>> > than big blades. All in all, it seems fairly light to me.
>>

snip
>
> This notion of "Light" and "Heavy", as well as "slip" seem to be
> variables that have a lot more to do with simply
> Span/inboard/Length/Blade type.

It's an inexact term, because it describes what the rower
would feel given the same length of slide travel, reach
and rating.

>
> For example:
> Load = Whatever pressure I choose to put on the handles.
> Slip = Who really can measure this? Though we can certainly see the
> wash-out when there is too much. This must vary considerably depending
> on the blade work. And while slip may not reduce the Load it would
> reduce the Impulse.

Well if you are rowing a rig that's loaded too much
for you, you can wash out or shorten up to keep
up. It's the body's way of adjusting.

I have a hard time telling when a sculler is rigged optimumly,
seeing what they're doing and how they feel on interval race pace
pieces is the closest I can figure.

snip to end.