20 May 2006 20:32:02
Al
Forward-facing oar system

http://www.forwardfacingrowingsystem.com/
http://tinyurl.com/orare(similar 1991 patent)

It puzzles me that this concept isn't hugely popular. It looks like they've
got the mechanics down unless it's not as robust as their testimonials
claim. The seller above asks a hefty price but you'd think it could be sold
cheaper if that was an issue.

I was thinking of inventing this myself until I did a search. I've read
earlier posts dismissing it as something few people want, but why would
anyone want to face backwards if they had a choice? Is it just some
stubborn conservative thing or lack of advertising?

Al

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----


21 May 2006 10:14:54
Alistair Potts
Re: Forward-facing oar system

Al wrote:

> I was thinking of inventing this myself until I did a search. I've read
> earlier posts dismissing it as something few people want, but why would
> anyone want to face backwards if they had a choice? Is it just some
> stubborn conservative thing or lack of advertising?

Fundamental to rowing is its inherent elegance, and part of this
elegance is the simplicity of the oar as a propellant. If you break the
oar, you're not really rowing.

Now if you make your living from rowing in some way you might find this
concept interesting; but hardly anyone does. If you want to travel
conveniently, get a motor-boat. If you want to maximise your efficiency,
build a racing pedalo. But if you want to travel elegantly, stick to a
one-piece oar.

A


21 May 2006 04:09:39
Eberhard Nabel
Re: Forward-facing oar system

There is a concept of using a crank-rocker mechanism instead of a
normal rigger.
http://www.brockeng.com/mechanism/DragLink.htm
If we consider the upper part of the moving image only, one could
imagine to fix an oar perpendicularly to the link BC. By doing so it is
possible to use normal sweeps and skulls and to get a forward rowing
boat.
http://www.schroederrowing.de/were said to make such riggers.



21 May 2006 05:52:36
KC
Re: Forward-facing oar system


Alistair Potts wrote:
> Al wrote:
>
> > I was thinking of inventing this myself until I did a search. I've read
> > earlier posts dismissing it as something few people want, but why would
> > anyone want to face backwards if they had a choice? Is it just some
> > stubborn conservative thing or lack of advertising?
>
> Fundamental to rowing is its inherent elegance, and part of this
> elegance is the simplicity of the oar as a propellant. If you break the
> oar, you're not really rowing.
>
> Now if you make your living from rowing in some way you might find this
> concept interesting; but hardly anyone does. If you want to travel
> conveniently, get a motor-boat. If you want to maximise your efficiency,
> build a racing pedalo. But if you want to travel elegantly, stick to a
> one-piece oar.
>
> A

If all you want is to get around your pond or harbor in your New
England Dory, then this is a fine invention. I wouldn't recommend it
for anyone who is an experienced rower though, as it looks like it'd
break under the kind of loads one applies if they're in a hurry (e.g.
trying to win a race).

The web site also states that the blade moves 15% faster than a normal
oar with the same handle speed. Hmmmm... sounds to me like a recipe
for inefficient blade hydrodynamics.

Again, it's a fine invention for the person who just paddles around in
"row boats", but as far as I can see, it's completely useless (i.e.
provides no advantage or improvement) and is possibly detrimental to
standard sliding-seat competitive/exercise rowing.

-Kieran



21 May 2006 06:00:21
KC
Re: Forward-facing oar system


KC wrote:
> Alistair Potts wrote:
> > Al wrote:
> >
> > > I was thinking of inventing this myself until I did a search. I've read
> > > earlier posts dismissing it as something few people want, but why would
> > > anyone want to face backwards if they had a choice? Is it just some
> > > stubborn conservative thing or lack of advertising?
> >
> > Fundamental to rowing is its inherent elegance, and part of this
> > elegance is the simplicity of the oar as a propellant. If you break the
> > oar, you're not really rowing.
> >
> > Now if you make your living from rowing in some way you might find this
> > concept interesting; but hardly anyone does. If you want to travel
> > conveniently, get a motor-boat. If you want to maximise your efficiency,
> > build a racing pedalo. But if you want to travel elegantly, stick to a
> > one-piece oar.
> >
> > A
>
> If all you want is to get around your pond or harbor in your New
> England Dory, then this is a fine invention. I wouldn't recommend it
> for anyone who is an experienced rower though, as it looks like it'd
> break under the kind of loads one applies if they're in a hurry (e.g.
> trying to win a race).
>
> The web site also states that the blade moves 15% faster than a normal
> oar with the same handle speed. Hmmmm... sounds to me like a recipe
> for inefficient blade hydrodynamics.
>
> Again, it's a fine invention for the person who just paddles around in
> "row boats", but as far as I can see, it's completely useless (i.e.
> provides no advantage or improvement) and is possibly detrimental to
> standard sliding-seat competitive/exercise rowing.
>
> -Kieran

I meant to add that primarily, I agree 100% with Alistair's comments
about the asthetics of traditional rowing. Secondarily, see my
original comments...

-Kieran



21 May 2006 06:58:42
HH
Re: Forward-facing oar system

Wouldn't be allowed anyway, in the same way sliding riggers are not
allowed.



21 May 2006 14:08:01
Joseph Meehan
Re: Forward-facing oar system

Al wrote:
>
> It puzzles me that this concept isn't hugely popular.

I would suggest several reasons.

First: Tradition and desire. If going fast and easy was the only goal,
we would all have motors on our boats.

Second. Complex mechanisms tend to fail, even good ones. Simple is
better and failure can be dangerous depending on where you row.

Third, competition rules are not likely to allow it any time soon.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit




21 May 2006 09:04:35
Jake
Re: Forward-facing oar system



> Al wrote:
> >
> > It puzzles me that this concept isn't hugely popular.
>

It has an even more complex relative in the Frontrower
http://www.frontrower.com/aboutfrontrower.htm
Neither system would work in a conventional fine sculling boat as the
whole 'using the blades to balance the boat' thing isn't catered for
well enough by such systems, so you would quickly fall out. It's
therefore not popular because it can only work in fat, stable, slow
boats, until somebody puts it on a catamaran. Both catamarans and
forward facing rowing systems are banned by FISA's definitions of
rowing, so it is unlikely anybody would be bothered.
Jake



21 May 2006 17:17:55
David Biddulph
Re: Forward-facing oar system

"Jake" <jake.frith@rya.org.uk > wrote in message
news:1148227475.271123.301970@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>> Al wrote:
>> >
>> > It puzzles me that this concept isn't hugely popular.
>>
>
> It has an even more complex relative in the Frontrower
> http://www.frontrower.com/aboutfrontrower.htm
> Neither system would work in a conventional fine sculling boat as the
> whole 'using the blades to balance the boat' thing isn't catered for
> well enough by such systems, so you would quickly fall out. It's
> therefore not popular because it can only work in fat, stable, slow
> boats, until somebody puts it on a catamaran. Both catamarans and
> forward facing rowing systems are banned by FISA's definitions of
> rowing, so it is unlikely anybody would be bothered.

As a matter of interest, which FISA rule forbids catamarans?
--
David Biddulph
Rowing web pages at
http://www.biddulph.org.uk/




21 May 2006 09:58:43
J Flory
Re: Forward-facing oar system


Joseph Meehan wrote:
> Al wrote:
> >
> > It puzzles me that this concept isn't hugely popular.
>
> I would suggest several reasons.
>
> First: Tradition and desire. If going fast and easy was the only goal,
> we would all have motors on our boats.
>
> Second. Complex mechanisms tend to fail, even good ones. Simple is
> better and failure can be dangerous depending on where you row.
>
> Third, competition rules are not likely to allow it any time soon.
>
> --
> Joseph Meehan
>
> Dia duit

Plus
Fourth: Going backwards simply isn't enough of a problem to
justify major expense, complexity, and/or compromises to avoid it. For
the directionally challenged like myself modern devices like mirrors
are readily available.



21 May 2006 11:28:01
Forward-facing oar system: balancing with Frontrower

Actually, no. You can balance the boat just fine with a Frontrower, if
you put on big curved blades instead of the touring-canoe-sized blades
it comes with. But banned by FISA it sure is.
There's a much, much simpler way to row sweep facing forward, just
pivoting the oars from the oarlocks on the side opposite to where the
blade goes in the water, and holding them in the middle. This
configuration is *specifically* prohibited by FISA.
If I were running things, fours and eights would have half the rowers
doing this and half rowing "normally", solving the weight
shift/velocity cycle problem and having half the rowers seeing where
they were going.//Zeke Hoskin
Jake wrote:
> > Al wrote:
> > >
> > > It puzzles me that this concept isn't hugely popular.
> >
>
> It has an even more complex relative in the Frontrower
> http://www.frontrower.com/aboutfrontrower.htm
> Neither system would work in a conventional fine sculling boat as the
> whole 'using the blades to balance the boat' thing isn't catered for
> well enough by such systems, so you would quickly fall out. It's
> therefore not popular because it can only work in fat, stable, slow
> boats, until somebody puts it on a catamaran. Both catamarans and
> forward facing rowing systems are banned by FISA's definitions of
> rowing, so it is unlikely anybody would be bothered.
> Jake



21 May 2006 11:56:21
Eberhard Nabel
Re: Forward-facing oar system: balancing with Frontrower

>There's a much, much simpler way to row sweep facing forward, just
>pivoting the oars from the oarlocks on the side opposite to where the
>blade goes in the water, and holding them in the middle. This
>configuration is *specifically* prohibited by FISA.

Same result one can get using the crank-rocker mechanism as a rigger,
which is an approximation of pivoting the oars on the other side.

Maybe that FISA prohibit this configuration. Bit they cannot prohibit
thinking.



21 May 2006 14:59:18
Al
Re: Forward-facing oar system

Alistair Potts <alistair.potts+usenet@gmail.com > wrote in
news:44702f8c$0$8341$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk:

> Al wrote:
>
>> I was thinking of inventing this myself until I did a
search. I've
>> read earlier posts dismissing it as something few people
want, but
>> why would anyone want to face backwards if they had a
choice? Is it
>> just some stubborn conservative thing or lack of
advertising?
>
> Fundamental to rowing is its inherent elegance, and part of
this
> elegance is the simplicity of the oar as a propellant. If
you break
> the oar, you're not really rowing.

I see your point, but only briefly. Is a compound bow not a
"real" bow for shooting arrows? How far does one take purism
and tradition? The basic oar is ancient and we've improved
many old concepts without destroying them entirely. Adding a
few modifications to an oarlock doesn't seem that radical.
This is something people have been trying to do for 100+ years
but old materials were limiting.

> Now if you make your living from rowing in some way you
might find
> this concept interesting; but hardly anyone does. If you
want to
> travel conveniently, get a motor-boat. If you want to
maximise your
> efficiency, build a racing pedalo. But if you want to travel
> elegantly, stick to a one-piece oar.

I just don't see it as an all or nothing proposition and
making a living has never been the only motive for improving
technology. This isn't like turning a rowboat into a
powerboat; it's just a few pivot points (in the Gig Harbor
design). If a simple invention makes rowing more fun and
efficient, why resist it? I know they won't be adopted
universally but I'd like to know how many are in use and if
they price might come down.

Al

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----


21 May 2006 15:09:32
Al
Re: Forward-facing oar system

"Jake" <jake.frith@rya.org.uk > wrote in news:1148227475.271123.301970
@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

>
>
>> Al wrote:
>> >
>> > It puzzles me that this concept isn't hugely popular.
>>
>
> It has an even more complex relative in the Frontrower
> http://www.frontrower.com/aboutfrontrower.htm
> Neither system would work in a conventional fine sculling boat as the
> whole 'using the blades to balance the boat' thing isn't catered for
> well enough by such systems, so you would quickly fall out. It's
> therefore not popular because it can only work in fat, stable, slow
> boats, until somebody puts it on a catamaran. Both catamarans and
> forward facing rowing systems are banned by FISA's definitions of
> rowing, so it is unlikely anybody would be bothered.

That Frontrower does look Goldbergian but the leg-power mode is
interesting. The other design is hardly what I'd call "complex," though. If
it's as reliable as they say, I'm all for it. They should charge a lot
less, though.

I wasn't aware those systems were banned for official events but I was
thinking of buying a rowboat for a lakeside cabin. Being into canoes and
kayaks, I'm not keen on looking over my shoulder. Nobody drives or walks
like that!

Al

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----


21 May 2006 15:15:13
Al
Re: Forward-facing oar system: balancing with Frontrower

zeke@zekehoskin.com wrote in news:1148236080.992313.191710
@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> There's a much, much simpler way to row sweep facing forward, just
> pivoting the oars from the oarlocks on the side opposite to where the
> blade goes in the water, and holding them in the middle.

Do you have a photo link of that configuration? It would seem to eliminate
the pivot/lever advantage or be awkward to master.

Al

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----


21 May 2006 15:36:48
Al
Re: Forward-facing oar system

"J Flory" <john.flory@snet.net > wrote in
news:1148230723.129059.213130@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Plus
> Fourth: Going backwards simply isn't enough of a problem to
> justify major expense, complexity, and/or compromises to avoid it.
> For the directionally challenged like myself modern devices like
> mirrors are readily available.

How does one define complex, though? Levers are ancient devices and it's a
no-brainer if they've eliminated mechanical stresses. Silicon bronze pivots
are touted as never needing lubricant. We're not talking about
microprocessor oar controls or anything fancier than a medieval catapult.

The videos on the Gig Harbor site are interesting. Viewed from the front or
back, the oars almost appear as single pieces. The only real difference is
that the direction of travel is reversed in the middle. It's like a knee or
elbow joint and quite natural looking.

Al

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----


21 May 2006 14:28:05
J Flory
Re: Forward-facing oar system


Al wrote:
> "J Flory" <john.flory@snet.net> wrote in
> news:1148230723.129059.213130@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Plus
> > Fourth: Going backwards simply isn't enough of a problem to
> > justify major expense, complexity, and/or compromises to avoid it.
> > For the directionally challenged like myself modern devices like
> > mirrors are readily available.
>
> How does one define complex, though? Levers are ancient devices and it's a
> no-brainer if they've eliminated mechanical stresses. Silicon bronze pivots
> are touted as never needing lubricant. We're not talking about
> microprocessor oar controls or anything fancier than a medieval catapult.
>
> The videos on the Gig Harbor site are interesting. Viewed from the front or
> back, the oars almost appear as single pieces. The only real difference is
> that the direction of travel is reversed in the middle. It's like a knee or
> elbow joint and quite natural looking.
>
> Al

By complex I meant more bits to break and probably trickier to rig. By
compromises I meant more weight, among other things. And for what?
Going backwards may seem like a major inconvenience to you but once you
get used to it it's really no problem.

Most of us on here are interested in going faster, and if we thought
this would be faster than what we use now we'd be all over it. Just
look back through the archives. For example, the sliding rigger was
faster and people were interested in it despite the added complexity.

Zeke's idea of half the crew facing forwards is intriguing - because it
might be faster, not because they could see where they're going.

If facing forward is paramount for you then by all means you should get
one of these setups.



21 May 2006 22:12:05
Al
Re: Forward-facing oar system

"J Flory" <john.flory@snet.net > wrote in
news:1148246885.205691.94410@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

> By complex I meant more bits to break and probably trickier to rig.

I still think complexity is a null concern. I doubt people resisted the
bicycle derailleur when it first appeared. If complexity leads to chronic
unreliability that's another story. It doesn't get much simpler than two
main oar pivot points and a connecting rod between them. The cost of the
rigs I've seen online is an issue but that's got to be a supply/demand
thing.

> By compromises I meant more weight, among other things. And for what?
> Going backwards may seem like a major inconvenience to you but once
> you get used to it it's really no problem.

I rowed a fair bit in the past in a plain old rowboat (no competition) and
I was thinking about facing forward from day one. Why get used to something
if it's not really necessary? There was a situation on a lake where going
under a pier would have been much easier without neck craning. Rowing in a
swampy area with submerged trees was another case. Open water racing is a
different situation.

> Most of us on here are interested in going faster, and if we thought
> this would be faster than what we use now we'd be all over it. Just
> look back through the archives. For example, the sliding rigger was
> faster and people were interested in it despite the added complexity.

I'll grant you that interrupting a solid oar with a reversal mechanism may
cut efficiency, but the guy in the Gig Harbor videos seems to be cruising
along. If I was into racing I would of course stick with whatever's
fastest. I don't care about absolute speed.

> Zeke's idea of half the crew facing forwards is intriguing - because
> it might be faster, not because they could see where they're going.
>
> If facing forward is paramount for you then by all means you should
> get one of these setups.

I'll certainly try it out someday. I can't think of another vehicle or
vessel where people resign themselves to looking backwards!

Al

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----


22 May 2006 09:41:08
Sam Doody
Re: Forward-facing oar system

> I'll certainly try it out someday. I can't think of another vehicle or
> vessel where people resign themselves to looking backwards!
>
> Al

Ah, but we like looking backwards. It's good to be in the lead in a race
and watch the opposition struggling behind you :)

Sam




22 May 2006 02:37:25
Re: Forward-facing oar system

I'll have to confirm this with my other half who's an engineer, but it
strikes me that there will be significant loss of power with this
arrangement so you'll go a lot slower.

Caroline



22 May 2006 04:50:23
Jake
Re: Forward-facing oar system

<<As a matter of interest, which FISA rule forbids catamarans? >>
You are correct David that no FISA rule explicitly forbids catamarans.
However the rules I looked at for their coastal boats, which I assumed
are based fairly closely on their river boat rules, but with different
dimensions, state 'no areas of concave hull curvature'. Put it this
way, I decided that developing a catamaran would be a waste of money,
because it would go apreciably faster in open water and the competition
would complain when it won. I then reasoned that FISA would choose to
interpret the rules to say that the crossbeams were part of the hull,
if the hull of a catamaran was considered as a whole, and therefore the
area where crossbeams joined hull would constitute a concave curvature!
The quads and doubles that FISA provide as loan boats at their own open
water championships both display concave areas under the waterline at
the sterns, but these are made by the French so nobody notices.

On a more positive note both FISA and the organising body for the
British Coastal Championships in Guernsey have agreed to let
Christopher Laughton bring the Rocat (http://www.rocat.co.uk/- A
recumbent sliding rigger, with clever linkage, catamaran) to compete at
the British Coastal Championships on the Saturday, albeit on its own in
its own class. I am going to ask them to call it a 'development class'
and see if they'll let me bring a coastal scull with floats-
http://www.southamptonrowing.org/isitsculling.htm, much more
conventional, but probably against the rules for the same reasons a
catamaran would be. If we get another rule breaking one man rowing boat
along, they will have 3 entries, the minimum to constitute a class and
have to give one of us a trophy!
Could this development class, if it goes ahead, be the first
FISA-tolerated admission that equipment development in our sport might
have been somewhat stifled since circa 1870?



22 May 2006 07:04:06
J Flory
Re: Forward-facing oar system

Al wrote:
> I still think complexity is a null concern. I doubt people resisted the
> bicycle derailleur when it first appeared.

Exactly - because it offered a benefit in speed. Before that people
had to stop, remove the wheel, and turn it around (a different gear on
either side of the hub), which took time. Furthermore, track bikes (at
least in my time) had a single gear, no derailleur, no freewheel, and
no brakes because they were unnecessary for that usage. The racer
sheds complexity and the inevitable added weight when it offers no
compensatory advantage.

Rowers are not averse to new technology: the Magik oarlock, the
T-handle sweep oar, the constant stream of new oar shapes are just a
few recent examples.

> There was a situation on a lake where going
> under a pier would have been much easier without neck craning. Rowing in a
> swampy area with submerged trees was another case.

I routinely scoot under a gangway running from a fixed pier to a
floating stage, with a clearance just wider than my blades, just for
fun and to tease my teammates. We row in a river often cluttered with
debris: huge trees, nearly-submerged logs, car tires, 55-gallon drums,
propane tanks, pumpkins (last fall), and fixed snags. No problem,
especially with a mirror, no constant craning.

> I'll certainly try it out someday. I can't think of another vehicle or
> vessel where people resign themselves to looking backwards!

"resign themselves" - that's certainly a prejudicial way of putting it!

You should learn to scull and then you might see that going backwards
is not as much of an issue as it seems to you from a "theoretical"
viewpoint.

BTW, do you have flotation in your rowboat and canoe? (There, I
managed to divert this thread to a discussion of buoyancy, the destiny
of every rsr thread!).



22 May 2006 07:12:48
Re: Forward-facing oar system

I had been looking at this particular device for some time and had a
chance to aquire it Saturday morning. My particular interest is to use
it for an adaptive (Arms Only) rower since it makes the direction of
travel much easier to deal with.

The seller happened to be a open water racer (Gig class) that had
obtained the equipment through a boat purchase, gave it a try, and it
simply felt "too weird" to him. He even had a sort of sliding seat
arrangement for the boat, which he described as being quite good,
though again, a "strange feeling". The one thing he did mention as not
feeling strange was that the motion of the hands was absolutely
identical, it was the visual component of seeing the blades doing the
opposite of what one would normally expect that probably added to the
other feelings of weirdness. I've had that occur when using a mirror
in a 2x and seeing a blade perfectly at the catch, but it was my
partners blade, and even though it was very close to being in synch
with what I would expect mine to be doing the tiny differences led to
getting rid of the mirror to restore normal feelings in the boat.

The Gig Harbor gear is extrememly well built, there seems to be no
apparent slack in the linkage, and it glides very smoothly. The whole
thing folds nicely and the blades can be shipped easily.

The next project is going to be to build a drop in system incorporating
this mechanism, if there are any suggestions anyone would like to make
on that, it would be much appreciated.

- Paul Smith

Al wrote:
> http://www.forwardfacingrowingsystem.com/
> http://tinyurl.com/orare(similar 1991 patent)
>
> It puzzles me that this concept isn't hugely popular. It looks like they've
> got the mechanics down unless it's not as robust as their testimonials
> claim. The seller above asks a hefty price but you'd think it could be sold
> cheaper if that was an issue.
>
> I was thinking of inventing this myself until I did a search. I've read
> earlier posts dismissing it as something few people want, but why would
> anyone want to face backwards if they had a choice? Is it just some
> stubborn conservative thing or lack of advertising?
>
> Al
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----



22 May 2006 10:42:04
Mike Sullivan
Re: Forward-facing oar system


<paul_v_smith@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1148307168.743456.198830@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I had been looking at this particular device for some time and had a
> chance to aquire it Saturday morning. My particular interest is to use
> it for an adaptive (Arms Only) rower since it makes the direction of
> travel much easier to deal with.

I once rigged up a tub single just for backing for
a paraplegic guy, but he moved out of town soon
after we tried it once.

That he couldn't use his legs anyway, and that he
had trouble holding himself vertical (he needed
chair back support to sit up) it made more sense
to me that it didn't matter that the boat went
the other way. If he'd stayed, I'd have remounted
the skeg in the bow for him.

He was very strong pushing anyway, since that's
the direction of the wheelchair.







22 May 2006 20:27:01
Alasdhair Johnston
Re: Forward-facing oar system

> I still think complexity is a null concern. I doubt people resisted the
> bicycle derailleur when it first appeared.

Want to bet?

There are people who pedal with single speed fixed gears even now, and not
just in velodromes ;-)






22 May 2006 22:31:25
Ewoud Dronkert
Re: Forward-facing oar system

J Flory wrote:
> track bikes (at
> least in my time) had a single gear, no derailleur, no freewheel, and
> no brakes because they were unnecessary for that usage. The racer
> sheds complexity and the inevitable added weight when it offers no
> compensatory advantage.

Weight is less important than drivetrain efficiency and aerodynamics
on the track. Brakes are just plain dangerous.

--
E. Dronkert


22 May 2006 14:07:45
J Flory
Re: Forward-facing oar system


Alasdhair Johnston wrote:
> > I still think complexity is a null concern. I doubt people resisted the
> > bicycle derailleur when it first appeared.
>
> Want to bet?
>
> There are people who pedal with single speed fixed gears even now, and not
> just in velodromes ;-)

I used to be one of them. Great way to learn circular pedaling action.



22 May 2006 22:45:20
John Mulholland
Re: Forward-facing oar system

"Jake" <jake.frith@rya.org.uk > wrote in message
news:1148298623.315114.135050@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip >
> On a more positive note both FISA and the organising body for the
> British Coastal Championships in Guernsey have agreed to let
> Christopher Laughton bring the Rocat (http://www.rocat.co.uk/- A
> recumbent sliding rigger, with clever linkage, catamaran) to compete at
> the British Coastal Championships on the Saturday, albeit on its own in
> its own class. I am going to ask them to call it a 'development class'
> and see if they'll let me bring a coastal scull with floats-
> http://www.southamptonrowing.org/isitsculling.htm, much more
> conventional, but probably against the rules for the same reasons a
> catamaran would be. If we get another rule breaking one man rowing boat
> along, they will have 3 entries, the minimum to constitute a class and
> have to give one of us a trophy!
> Could this development class, if it goes ahead, be the first
> FISA-tolerated admission that equipment development in our sport might
> have been somewhat stifled since circa 1870?
>

Both of these ideas have benefits for training beginners and adaptive rowers
who may have difficulty with balance. For river use, I would like to see
the Rocat with longer sculls with cross-over; more like conventional sculls.
The Southampton system seems to have the added advantage of being removable
when the novice gets more experienced. Keep up the innovation!

--
John Mulholland




22 May 2006 21:31:22
Al
Re: Forward-facing oar system

paul_v_smith@hotmail.com wrote in
news:1148307168.743456.198830@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> The seller happened to be a open water racer (Gig class) that had
> obtained the equipment through a boat purchase, gave it a try, and it
> simply felt "too weird" to him.

Maybe he's steeped in too much tradition! How much time did he give it? I
could quickly get used to seeing where I'm going at all times.

> The Gig Harbor gear is extrememly well built, there seems to be no
> apparent slack in the linkage, and it glides very smoothly. The whole
> thing folds nicely and the blades can be shipped easily.

Before researching these online I was unaware anyone marketed them, though
I suspected such. I've had my own idea for a system with fewer pivot points
that seems more efficient (I'd have to consult an engineer). It seems so
intuitive that I'm still searching for an existing patent. Enough said on
that.

Al

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----


22 May 2006 21:40:39
Al
Re: Forward-facing oar system

carolinetu@aol.com wrote in news:1148290645.180739.131330
@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> I'll have to confirm this with my other half who's an engineer, but it
> strikes me that there will be significant loss of power with this
> arrangement so you'll go a lot slower.

Those boats in the Gig Harbor videos are moving at a good clip. It seems no
less efficient than a double-jointed human elbow or leg. Energy would be
lost at the pivot points, so their friction would be key. I have a concept
that would remove two of those pivot points and it doesn't seem to have
been patented yet.

Al

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----


22 May 2006 22:14:07
Al
Re: Forward-facing oar system

"J Flory" <john.flory@snet.net > wrote in
news:1148306646.205296.303950@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> Al wrote:
>> I still think complexity is a null concern. I doubt people resisted
>> the bicycle derailleur when it first appeared.
>
> Exactly - because it offered a benefit in speed. Before that people
> had to stop, remove the wheel, and turn it around (a different gear on
> either side of the hub), which took time. Furthermore, track bikes (at
> least in my time) had a single gear, no derailleur, no freewheel, and
> no brakes because they were unnecessary for that usage. The racer
> sheds complexity and the inevitable added weight when it offers no
> compensatory advantage.

All I can say is that absolute speed isn't my concern. The boats in the
videos certainly don't look slow.

>> There was a situation on a lake where going
>> under a pier would have been much easier without neck craning. Rowing
>> in a swampy area with submerged trees was another case.
>
> I routinely scoot under a gangway running from a fixed pier to a
> floating stage, with a clearance just wider than my blades, just for
> fun and to tease my teammates. We row in a river often cluttered with
> debris: huge trees, nearly-submerged logs, car tires, 55-gallon drums,
> propane tanks, pumpkins (last fall), and fixed snags. No problem,
> especially with a mirror, no constant craning.

I think that's highly optimistic for worst case scenarios, including mild
river running. If you come upon a submerged log or rock you may never see
it if you aren't vigilant in the forward view. I've mostly used canoes and
I've saved several hulls with quick turns. I can't see how a mirror would
help much if something was submerged. It robs your depth of field.

I'm also talking about big, "clumsy" rowboats that sit high on the water.
You have to stretch to see beneath the bow and it's tricky enough when
you're already facing forward. Surely that inspired these gadgets that you
see no need for!

> You should learn to scull and then you might see that going backwards
> is not as much of an issue as it seems to you from a "theoretical"
> viewpoint.

I have never been in a low-lying scull but I've used various kayaks. Try as
you may, you'll not get me to think backwards! I'm one of those guys who
can't sit in a restaurant with my back to the door.

> BTW, do you have flotation in your rowboat and canoe? (There, I
> managed to divert this thread to a discussion of buoyancy, the destiny
> of every rsr thread!).

If you mean flotation of the whole boat vs. a life-jacket, no. I don't even
own a rowboat yet, just a canoe and kayak. A big reason I don't own a
rowboat is....you guessed it!

Al

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----


23 May 2006 08:33:36
Ewoud Dronkert
Re: Forward-facing oar system

On Mon, 22 May 2006 21:40:39 -0500, Al wrote:
>I have a concept that would remove two of those pivot points
>and it doesn't seem to have been patented yet.

There's a reason for that. Either or several of the following:
1. It cannot be patented.
2. It should not be patented.
3. It won't make money when patented.
4. It is patented.
--
E. Dronkert


23 May 2006 02:18:12
J Flory
Re: Forward-facing oar system


Al wrote:
>
> Those boats in the Gig Harbor videos are moving at a good clip. It seems no
> less efficient than a double-jointed human elbow or leg. Energy would be
> lost at the pivot points, so their friction would be key. I have a concept
> that would remove two of those pivot points and it doesn't seem to have
> been patented yet.
>
> Al
>
Here's a simple elegant solution [posted here some months ago] that
replaces ALL pivot points with one fiber-based universal joint, and
offers lumbar support to boot:

http://www.rocketboom.com/vlog/archives/2005/11/rb_05_nov_16_1.html

Downside is that back and arm muscles don't come into play.



23 May 2006 13:13:28
Neil Wallace
Re: Forward-facing oar system

Al wrote:
> Try as you may, you'll not get me to think backwards! I'm one of those
> guys
> who can't sit in a restaurant with my back to the door.

known around these parts as "gangsters".

seriously though. you need to see a shrink.




23 May 2006 06:30:33
KC
Re: Forward-facing oar system


Al wrote:
>
>
> All I can say is that absolute speed isn't my concern. The boats in the
> videos certainly don't look slow.

Al, first of all, I'd like to welcome you to RSR, as it seems you are
new here, and it's fantastic to have a non-competetive rower (or future
rower) posting to the group. The more diversity the better. I know
Mike Sullivan tried once years ago to see if there were any Currach
rowers lurking around.

Secondly, and not to send you off or anything, but as I'm sure you've
figured out, this news group is largely populated by people who row
primarily in flat-water racing boats, not large dinghy/tender/fishing
sized "rowboats". So, as much as you can't understand why we would
prefer to face backwards, we can't understand why you can't understand
why we would prefer to face backwards! ;^)

Thirdly, speed may not be your main concern, but the boats in the
videos certainly DID look slow. :^)

Further, while speed is not always our "absolute" concern, it is
generally the driving principle behind most of what we do, and discuss.
(Well, safety would probably be the other driving principle to most of
the discussions here.) Yes, speed, and safety. Those are the two
tenets we hold dear... and story-telling! Speed, Safety and
Story-telling. The THREE tenets we hold dear would be Speed, Safety,
and Story-telling. AND THE MEDIA! The FOUR tenets of rec.sport.rowing
would be discussions related to speed, safety, story-telling, rowing in
the media, and regatta planning. Five. Five tenets...

;^) And now for something completely different...

The point is, the forward rowing rig would probably be a great thing
for the type of rowing you're interested in. I'd be interested to hear
how it goes for you if you do it. I'd also be interested in trying it
out just for kicks, if I ever run across one. However, it is almost
completely useless and likely detrimental to anyone who rows in
racing-style shells.

-Kieran



23 May 2006 08:16:01
Re: Forward-facing oar system


KC wrote:
> ;^) And now for something completely different...
>
> The point is, the forward rowing rig would probably be a great thing
> for the type of rowing you're interested in. I'd be interested to hear
> how it goes for you if you do it. I'd also be interested in trying it
> out just for kicks, if I ever run across one. However, it is almost
> completely useless and likely detrimental to anyone who rows in
> racing-style shells.
>
> -Kieran

Which has prompted you to go on an on about particular issues in the
recent past, what changed your mind about doing it now? Oh wait, you
are doing it now.

"almost completely useless" and "likely detrimental"; Are you sure you
are a scientist and not a philosopher?

Is this that "irony" thing playing out again?

- Paul Smith



23 May 2006 16:41:56
Alistair Potts
Re: Forward-facing oar system



paul_v_smith@hotmail.com wrote:
> KC wrote:
>> ;^) And now for something completely different...

> Which has prompted you to go on an on about particular issues in the
> recent past, what changed your mind about doing it now? Oh wait, you
> are doing it now.
>
> "almost completely useless" and "likely detrimental"; Are you sure you
> are a scientist and not a philosopher?
>
> Is this that "irony" thing playing out again?

fight! fight! fight!



23 May 2006 10:16:02
Re: Forward-facing oar system

The Gig Harbor rig is by no means useless for utility rowing. For
sliding seat rowing in a skinny scull, it has two major problems that
could fairly be said to make it useless for that purpose.
Problem: you can't feather.
Problem: weight/momentum transfer is in the wrong direction. When you
put your body into the stroke, you are moving your body *backwards*, so
the much lighter boat just scoots out in front of you. Velocity cycling
would be very much worse than with a normal scull. This could be
addressed by having two rowers rowing out of synch, or one normal rower
for every forward-facing rower. Or putting the GH oarlocks on a sliding
rigger.
Disclaimer: my comments are theoretical. I do use a Frontrower in an
open water shell, and find it very slightly slower than a
backwards-facing sliding seat rig.//Zeke Hoskin
paul_v_smith@hotmail.com wrote:
> KC wrote:
> > ;^) And now for something completely different...
> >
> > The point is, the forward rowing rig would probably be a great thing
> > for the type of rowing you're interested in. I'd be interested to hear
> > how it goes for you if you do it. I'd also be interested in trying it
> > out just for kicks, if I ever run across one. However, it is almost
> > completely useless and likely detrimental to anyone who rows in
> > racing-style shells.
> >
> > -Kieran
>
> Which has prompted you to go on an on about particular issues in the
> recent past, what changed your mind about doing it now? Oh wait, you
> are doing it now.
>
> "almost completely useless" and "likely detrimental"; Are you sure you
> are a scientist and not a philosopher?
>
> Is this that "irony" thing playing out again?
>
> - Paul Smith



23 May 2006 22:02:47
Henning Lippke
Re: Forward-facing oar system

Alistair Potts wrote:
> fight! fight! fight!

There's some similarity:

http://www.ps-sport.net/images/paul%20024s2.jpg
http://www.my-boathouse.com/upload/coach.jpg

"I AM THE GREAT CORNHOLIO! I NEED TP FOR MY BUNG HOLE!"
- Beavis



23 May 2006 13:24:11
Mike Sullivan
Re: Forward-facing oar system


"Henning Lippke" <usenet@mail.my-boathouse.com > wrote in message
news:4dh83kF1a3jrcU1@individual.net...
> Alistair Potts wrote:
>> fight! fight! fight!
>
> There's some similarity:
>
> http://www.ps-sport.net/images/paul%20024s2.jpg
> http://www.my-boathouse.com/upload/coach.jpg

damn, Henning, I'm sending you a bill for a new keyboard,
I sprayed ice tea all over mine......
:^)




23 May 2006 14:25:17
Re: Forward-facing oar system


Henning Lippke wrote:
> Alistair Potts wrote:
> > fight! fight! fight!
>
> There's some similarity:
>
> http://www.ps-sport.net/images/paul%20024s2.jpg
> http://www.my-boathouse.com/upload/coach.jpg
>
> "I AM THE GREAT CORNHOLIO! I NEED TP FOR MY BUNG HOLE!"
> - Beavis

Hmm, I just don't see it. [;o)

Shouldn't you be locating a couple of Brass oarlocks for me?

- Paul Smith



24 May 2006 00:06:40
Stamps
Re: Forward-facing oar system

paul_v_smith@hotmail.com wrote:
> The one thing he did mention as not
> feeling strange was that the motion of the hands was absolutely
> identical, it was the visual component of seeing the blades doing the
> opposite of what one would normally expect that probably added to the
> other feelings of weirdness. I've had that occur when using a mirror
> in a 2x and seeing a blade perfectly at the catch, but it was my
> partners blade, and even though it was very close to being in synch
> with what I would expect mine to be doing the tiny differences led to
> getting rid of the mirror to restore normal feelings in the boat.
>

I don't buy this explanation, well the latter part anyway. I think it
is more to do with the angles looking different in the mirror, as per
the start of your comment, nothing to do with timing. After all, it is
easy enough rowing at 2 in an eight, say, with minor timing diferences
and feel as if the rowing was 'normal'. I use a mirror when sculling
most of the time for safety and it feels perfectly natural now. In fact
once you are used to it steering becomes much easier and less
disruptive to your rowing. E.g., a novice sculler decides to spin in
front of you and instead of:
a) hitting him because you didn't glance round in the 5-10 strokes you
had before collision, or
b) holding it up hard, or
c) oversteering;
you can keep an eye on them every stroke and steer just enough to
safely cruise past.

I used the mirror in a head race where we cross a bay, and the ability
to aim directly for the river entrance made a huge difference to my
course - I could see scullers behind me going a very long way round.

It also helps doing pieces when you are starting behind another crew,
as you can watch them quite easily and so ensure you don't clash
blades, plus it helps in executing your strategy for catching them.
Yes, you still need to have your eyes in your own boat, but knowledge
is power and the mirror helps with that I find.

Our river isn't that busy but it is an easy-to-use safety aid and I
haven't noticed anything negative - I'd encourage any scullers or
steerers of coxless boats on busy rivers to learn how to use them.

cheers
Mark



24 May 2006 00:38:38
Re: Forward-facing oar system


Stamps wrote:

SNIP

> I use a mirror when sculling
> most of the time for safety and it feels perfectly natural now. In fact
> once you are used to it steering becomes much easier and less
> disruptive to your rowing. E.g., a novice sculler decides to spin in
> front of you and instead of:
> a) hitting him because you didn't glance round in the 5-10 strokes you
> had before collision, or
> b) holding it up hard, or
> c) oversteering;
> you can keep an eye on them every stroke and steer just enough to
> safely cruise past.
>
> I used the mirror in a head race where we cross a bay, and the ability
> to aim directly for the river entrance made a huge difference to my
> course - I could see scullers behind me going a very long way round.
>
> It also helps doing pieces when you are starting behind another crew,
> as you can watch them quite easily and so ensure you don't clash
> blades, plus it helps in executing your strategy for catching them.
> Yes, you still need to have your eyes in your own boat, but knowledge
> is power and the mirror helps with that I find.
>
> Our river isn't that busy but it is an easy-to-use safety aid and I
> haven't noticed anything negative - I'd encourage any scullers or
> steerers of coxless boats on busy rivers to learn how to use them.
>
> cheers
> Mark

As a matter of interest, which one do you use?

Kit



24 May 2006 06:13:49
Re: Forward-facing oar system


Stamps wrote:
> paul_v_smith@hotmail.com wrote:
> > The one thing he did mention as not
> > feeling strange was that the motion of the hands was absolutely
> > identical, it was the visual component of seeing the blades doing the
> > opposite of what one would normally expect that probably added to the
> > other feelings of weirdness. I've had that occur when using a mirror
> > in a 2x and seeing a blade perfectly at the catch, but it was my
> > partners blade, and even though it was very close to being in synch
> > with what I would expect mine to be doing the tiny differences led to
> > getting rid of the mirror to restore normal feelings in the boat.
> >
>
> I don't buy this explanation, well the latter part anyway. I think it
> is more to do with the angles looking different in the mirror, as per
> the start of your comment, nothing to do with timing. After all, it is
> easy enough rowing at 2 in an eight, say, with minor timing diferences
> and feel as if the rowing was 'normal'. I use a mirror when sculling
> most of the time for safety and it feels perfectly natural now. In fact
> once you are used to it steering becomes much easier and less
> disruptive to your rowing. E.g., a novice sculler decides to spin in
> front of you and instead of:
> a) hitting him because you didn't glance round in the 5-10 strokes you
> had before collision, or
> b) holding it up hard, or
> c) oversteering;
> you can keep an eye on them every stroke and steer just enough to
> safely cruise past.
>
> I used the mirror in a head race where we cross a bay, and the ability
> to aim directly for the river entrance made a huge difference to my
> course - I could see scullers behind me going a very long way round.
>
> It also helps doing pieces when you are starting behind another crew,
> as you can watch them quite easily and so ensure you don't clash
> blades, plus it helps in executing your strategy for catching them.
> Yes, you still need to have your eyes in your own boat, but knowledge
> is power and the mirror helps with that I find.
>
> Our river isn't that busy but it is an easy-to-use safety aid and I
> haven't noticed anything negative - I'd encourage any scullers or
> steerers of coxless boats on busy rivers to learn how to use them.
>
> cheers
> Mark

I really was talking about an interaction effect, I have used a mirror
in a 1x and 2x bow and there is no particular problem once the "getting
used to it" phase was done. The situation regarding following others
blades (2 in an 8+) is not applicable, as it is obvious that the other
blades are under the control of, well, others. The situation I was
describing gave me the impression of a blade being under my control
that was not in fact under my control, and it was disconcerting. With
the GH system, I think that once the association between hand movement
and blade movement (in the same directions) had been observed, it would
all feel quite natural (GH says as much on thier site, and I believe
them.), as they are linked directly to eachother. The seller admitted
that he only gave it a single try before deciding it wasn't for him,
and he was used to the more traditional approach.

- Paul Smith



24 May 2006 17:02:26
Neil Wallace
Re: Forward-facing oar system

Mike Sullivan wrote:
> "Henning Lippke" <usenet@mail.my-boathouse.com> wrote in message
> news:4dh83kF1a3jrcU1@individual.net...
>> Alistair Potts wrote:
>>> fight! fight! fight!
>>
>> There's some similarity:
>>
>> http://www.ps-sport.net/images/paul%20024s2.jpg
>> http://www.my-boathouse.com/upload/coach.jpg
>
> damn, Henning, I'm sending you a bill for a new keyboard,
> I sprayed ice tea all over mine......
> :^)

New trousers in my case.
My coffee came out of my nostrils.




25 May 2006 04:21:21
Stamps
Re: Forward-facing oar system


kdavies@kidare.com wrote:
>
> As a matter of interest, which one do you use?
>
> Kit

Heads-Up, works a treat. It is always sunny in Hong Kong :-) so you
always need those trendy shades (which I always drop and scratch soon
after purchase, much to my wife's chagrin):

http://www.cycleaware.com/products/heads-up.php

I wanted to try the ViewPoint things, but they were out of stock when I
ordered them and I forgot all about them. Anyone tried them?

Mark



25 May 2006 04:26:52
Stamps
Re: Forward-facing oar system

paul_v_smith@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> I really was talking about an interaction effect, I have used a mirror
> in a 1x and 2x bow and there is no particular problem once the "getting
> used to it" phase was done. The situation regarding following others
> blades (2 in an 8+) is not applicable, as it is obvious that the other
> blades are under the control of, well, others. The situation I was
> describing gave me the impression of a blade being under my control
> that was not in fact under my control, and it was disconcerting. With
> the GH system, I think that once the association between hand movement
> and blade movement (in the same directions) had been observed, it would
> all feel quite natural (GH says as much on thier site, and I believe
> them.), as they are linked directly to eachother. The seller admitted
> that he only gave it a single try before deciding it wasn't for him,
> and he was used to the more traditional approach.
>
> - Paul Smith

I'm confused, I thought you said you ditched the mirror in the 2x as
you didn't get used to it? No matter, anyway. I like using a mirror and
I'd recommend others give them a try. But kinked blades and rowing
forwards, nah, not when you have so much fun watching people eat your
wake........!

Mark



25 May 2006 11:07:36
Re: Forward-facing oar system


Stamps wrote:
> paul_v_smith@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > I really was talking about an interaction effect, I have used a mirror
> > in a 1x and 2x bow and there is no particular problem once the "getting
> > used to it" phase was done. The situation regarding following others
> > blades (2 in an 8+) is not applicable, as it is obvious that the other
> > blades are under the control of, well, others. The situation I was
> > describing gave me the impression of a blade being under my control
> > that was not in fact under my control, and it was disconcerting. With
> > the GH system, I think that once the association between hand movement
> > and blade movement (in the same directions) had been observed, it would
> > all feel quite natural (GH says as much on thier site, and I believe
> > them.), as they are linked directly to eachother. The seller admitted
> > that he only gave it a single try before deciding it wasn't for him,
> > and he was used to the more traditional approach.
> >
> > - Paul Smith
>
> I'm confused, I thought you said you ditched the mirror in the 2x as
> you didn't get used to it? No matter, anyway. I like using a mirror and
> I'd recommend others give them a try. But kinked blades and rowing
> forwards, nah, not when you have so much fun watching people eat your
> wake........!
>
> Mark

Perhaps I should be more forgiving of confusion than I have in the
past, but I did state that I was seeing a blade that was my partners
when at the catch (I thought this wa obvious that it was when in the
stroke seat of a 2x.), and that was disconcerting for perceptual
reasons, then I clarified a bit more after your initial response by
describing that this was due to an interactive effect, not merely the
use of a mirror.

Anyway, I do think that a mirror is a useful thing to try (though that
was not really part of this thread, was it?), and worth giving it a
fair chance without giving up to the initial strangeness. Afterall, we
are used to watching behind us with mirrors while driving, the
strangeness is found in the fact that now we are moving toward the
things in the mirror rather than away from them. I'll be interested in
giving the forward rowing system a try, but do not see it as something
that I would change to from the more traditional method, just as I will
likely continue to look over my shoulder when backing a vehicle. [;o)

- Paul Smith



25 May 2006 23:52:17
Henning Lippke
Re: Forward-facing oar system

Al wrote:
> It puzzles me that this concept isn't hugely popular.

I find it very distracting - although very nice - watching my bow
cutting the waves. I find myself doing it with the mirror sometimes, and
it really doesn't help my rowing. Better to focus the view on something
unspectacular (if I dare to say that on a CDRS) like the stern and limit
the forward view to the occasional scan for obstacles.