27 Jul 2005 13:29:36
Neil Wallace
Rig Height


http://nialldarroch3081.fotopic.net/p18003265.html

Too much height?
Not Enough?
Just right?
Whadya think?




27 Jul 2005 13:34:34
Douglas MacFarlane
Re: Rig Height

In article <3kpd17FvhlpqU1@individual.net >,
rowing.golfer*NOSPAM*@virgin.net says...
>
>
>
>http://nialldarroch3081.fotopic.net/p18003265.html
>
>Too much height?
>Not Enough?
>Just right?
>Whadya think?
>
>

What about boat height? Is the boat too big? It looks like there is quite
a lot of boat above the water. It may be that the boat is not completely
level though.

Douglas



27 Jul 2005 17:15:36
Neil Wallace
Re: Rig Height

Douglas MacFarlane wrote:
>> http://nialldarroch3081.fotopic.net/p18003265.html
>>
> What about boat height? Is the boat too big? It looks like there is
> quite a lot of boat above the water. It may be that the boat is not
> completely level though.

Hi Douglas,

I agree, I think the boat is a tad too big, but wonder whether that really
matters.
I know Henning Lippke tried several moulds of single and choose one on the
"big side" purposefully. Youngsters seem to manage in just about anything
also... when in all likelihood they have sit far too much above the
waterline.

Could it be the case that if you have the boatmanship to balance on a
"thinner beam" (so to speak) that it doesn't matter much? Or are there
advantages in certain conditions?

BTW - underboating is a different story.

Neil.
interesting that piccie has now been viewed 173 times. Nice bit of gallery
generating software too.




27 Jul 2005 09:27:20
Re: Rig Height



Neil Wallace wrote:
> http://nialldarroch3081.fotopic.net/p18003265.html
>
> Too much height?
> Not Enough?
> Just right?
> Whadya think?

http://www.nlroei.nl/Fotoboek-display-40640.html

Compare..Different part of the stroke but the new GB lwt lady has arms
really high. Its looks very good. Its a change to see a GB lightweigh
women who is hanging so well with arms and looks loose and fluid and
not tight and grippy with the arms and shoulders on early. This girl is
really hanging on her leg power and the height allows this. My money
says she will be in the 2x in Beijing if fit.



27 Jul 2005 09:47:32
Mike Sullivan
Re: Rig Height


"Neil Wallace" <rowing.golfer*NOSPAM*@virgin.net > wrote in message
news:3kpd17FvhlpqU1@individual.net...
>
> http://nialldarroch3081.fotopic.net/p18003265.html
>
> Too much height?
> Not Enough?
> Just right?
> Whadya think?

Looks good to me. I'd believe elite scullers after
they master good bladework and are proficient
at finishing well would benefit slightly
from rigging low, but all the rest of us are better
off rigged high.

The boat may be a bit too big, but given that her
square blades are both off the water easily at the
most critical part of the recovery says it's not
going to matter to her.

I love all these pics you guys are putting out here.

Mike




27 Jul 2005 20:49:47
Carl Douglas
Re: Rig Height

Mike Sullivan <sul@SNIPslac.stanford.edu > writes
>
>"Neil Wallace" <rowing.golfer*NOSPAM*@virgin.net> wrote in message
>news:3kpd17FvhlpqU1@individual.net...
>>
>> http://nialldarroch3081.fotopic.net/p18003265.html
>>
>> Too much height?
>> Not Enough?
>> Just right?
>> Whadya think?
>
>Looks good to me. I'd believe elite scullers after
>they master good bladework and are proficient
>at finishing well would benefit slightly
>from rigging low, but all the rest of us are better
>off rigged high.
>
>The boat may be a bit too big, but given that her
>square blades are both off the water easily at the
>most critical part of the recovery says it's not
>going to matter to her.
>
>I love all these pics you guys are putting out here.
>

That's Caitie Gorton (Scotland). She's sculling one of our singles,
built way back in 1988.

This boat is built for 60kg. After 17 years of continuous competition
it is still handsome, stiff & competitive. We have it in our shop right
now, for the first time in its life, for a spot of TLC following a minor
bump or three.

In the picture Caitie has her hands level, which should put the bowside
blade higher, but she is heeled over onto bowside quite a bit, which
gives a visual sense of a lot of freeboard.

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



28 Jul 2005 05:23:10
Re: Rig Height



Caitie wrote:
> Ths year, I actually gave myself more height to give myself slightly
> more "room" at the finish. I also considered the capacity to hang the
> weight of the blades and draw. I don't seem to have achieved this yet,
> at the next photo shows - perhaps more height is required still?
>
> http://www.bigblade.net/rowing/events/2005/hwr05/events/displayimage.pl?src=events&im=3647&offset=1
>
> The pic contrasts sharply with the U23 girl - very nicely hung off the
> blades.
>
> Does one want to go for the highest rig possible? without missing the
> catch or washing out at the finish? Does this achieve maximum effective
> length?
>
> The boat, I think, is slightly too big for me (being somewhat of a
> smurf) however its totally fabulous and has incredible run, and I
> wouldn't swap it for anything, other than a brand new Carl Douglas. I
> don't think that a smaller hull would make an impact on my speed, plus
> its hard to buy a single that's been designed to be less than 60kgs.

Very nice position in the Henley photo. Looks like you are driving the
seat and holding the body position constant which is also good.
Lightweight women as Edouard pointed out do tend to row further
throught the work as they do not have the upper body strength of a
Mueller or Hacker to muscle the finish. But just on this you are doing
most things exceptionally well.



28 Jul 2005 05:45:19
Caitie
Re: Rig Height

Yes, I was sitting still, I think I get what you are saying. Is this
the kind of thing that would be helped by the feet out exercise?



28 Jul 2005 05:46:17
Caitie
Re: Rig Height

How very kind. thanks.



28 Jul 2005 16:19:34
Ewoud Dronkert
Re: Rig Height

On 28 Jul 2005 05:23:10 -0700, anton2468@aol.com wrote:
> Very nice position in the Henley photo. Looks like you are driving the
> seat and holding the body position constant which is also good.

Exactly, I think we are both fans of the Italian style.

> Lightweight women as Edouard pointed out do tend to row further
> throught the work as they do not have the upper body strength of a
> Mueller or Hacker to muscle the finish.

Yes.

A+,
Edu.

--
Firefox Browser - Rediscover the web - http://getffox.com/
Thunderbird E-mail and Newsgroups - http://gettbird.com/


28 Jul 2005 22:24:38
Carl Douglas
Re: Rig Height

anton2468@aol.com writes
>
>Very nice position in the Henley photo. Looks like you are driving the
>seat and holding the body position constant which is also good.

Couldn't help noticing that comment & wondering.

1. As regards the supposed merits of a fixed back posture:
The angular position of the back relative to horizontal plane is
sustained only by the rower constantly increasing the angle between
thigh & lower back (say L5) as the legs go down.

Thus work is done continuously around that joint throughout that part of
the stroke to maintain a fixed back inclination as the angle between
back & thigh opens out, & there is no definable benefit which can arise
out of sustaining any apparently static back inclination.

Nor is there any intrinsic mechanical connection between pelvis & boat
which might tend to support any particular back posture.

2. As for driving the seat:
The seat offers no significant resistance, so can need no driving. All
that the pushing away of the feet from the body does is to increase the
distance between the hands and the stern of the boat which is, after
all, all one has to do to move the boat.

So, while it may be transiently useful as a mental concept, I would not
have thought to see either fixed body angle WRT the horizontal plane or
the concept of driving the seat proposed as significant indicators of
good technique.

>Lightweight women as Edouard pointed out do tend to row further
>throught the work as they do not have the upper body strength of a
>Mueller or Hacker to muscle the finish. But just on this you are doing
>most things exceptionally well.

This raises another, more philosophical, issue:
LW women (& men) pull with but a fraction of the force generated by such
as Marcel Hacker. Yet they use blades & rigs which are virtually
identical in size & proportion to the big boys. Doesn't this seem odd?

Couple this with Anton's observations on the relatively wide range of
body action of the lighties, as compared to the heavies. So both seem
perhaps to be achieving the same angular range from catch to finish with
teh same rigs but by different means. Can that make sense?

Thus at the same rating the big guy has far larger blade loadings than
the small girl & leaves disproportionately larger puddles. The bigger
puddles are because his blade slip is much greater as well as more
forceful. So despite his more powerful stroke his propulsive efficiency
has to be lower, because he is throwing more work away in unproductive
slip (work lost = slip distance x force).

So shouldn't teh big guys think about reproportioning their rigs - wider
spreads, longer sticks, but similar inboard/outboard ratios - &
reproportioning their stroke lengths accordingly? Or do they feel not
feel the need to go faster?

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



28 Jul 2005 16:07:33
Jonny
Re: Rig Height

Carl, I agree with some of your comments about the rig, in particular
the blades and oar length.

I think the bigger blades have made the oars shorter than they should
be. I have Crokers with a cut out in them so that I can row 291-292,
rather than 288. My catch and release angles are no different, but I
have a longer arc in the water.

A really short stick also makes some of the angles a bit tight and
alters the heights you can row.

C2 are bringing out a bigger blade - therefore shorter stick - Good or
bad?

I won't argue the merits of a blade shape, but perhaps they need to be
scaled down to allow for a longer stick?

LW/women's/junior sizes blades?



28 Jul 2005 16:47:43
Re: Rig Height

Carl Douglas wrote:
>
> 1. As regards the supposed merits of a fixed back posture:
> The angular position of the back relative to horizontal plane is
> sustained only by the rower constantly increasing the angle between
> thigh & lower back (say L5) as the legs go down.
>
> Thus work is done continuously around that joint throughout that part of
> the stroke to maintain a fixed back inclination as the angle between
> back & thigh opens out, & there is no definable benefit which can arise
> out of sustaining any apparently static back inclination.
>
> Nor is there any intrinsic mechanical connection between pelvis & boat
> which might tend to support any particular back posture.

your knees are in a relatively weak position at the catch; if you start
moving the back immediately they will stay in a weak position for more
of the stroke and your quads will have to provide more force (although
no more work) to do the same total work in the stroke. This is probably
not conducive to moving boats, though I don't suppose it's really much
of an issue for most people - OTOH, LW rowers would be most likely to
find that a problem.

Pete



29 Jul 2005 09:11:35
Neil Wallace
Re: Rig Height

anton2468@aol.com wrote:
(snip)
> Lightweight women as Edouard pointed out do tend to row further
> throught the work as they do not have the upper body strength of a
> Mueller or Hacker to muscle the finish.


Marcel Hacker has a very delicate finish IMO.




29 Jul 2005 10:49:09
mislav
Re: Rig Height


"Carl Douglas" <Carl@carldouglas.co.uk > wrote in message
news:MkRBZbFW0U6CFwhQ@rowing-cdrs.demon.co.uk...
> anton2468@aol.com writes
>
> 2. As for driving the seat:
> The seat offers no significant resistance, so can need no driving. All
> that the pushing away of the feet from the body does is to increase the
> distance between the hands and the stern of the boat which is, after all,
> all one has to do to move the boat.

I would notice from time to time this "seat driving" technique watching
races on a TV and was wondering why do people do it these days. I supposed
there might be some differences/advances in technique like in many other
sports, but back in 80's when I learned to row I was specifically taught not
to do it, and that's because, as I was told at the time, if we started with
legs only at the catch we would probably have our legs fully extended before
the finish, therefore all force at this very important moment would have to
be produced with arms and back only.




29 Jul 2005 12:03:03
Neil Wallace
Re: Rig Height

Carl Douglas wrote:
(snip)
> So, while it may be transiently useful as a mental concept, I would
> not have thought to see either fixed body angle WRT the horizontal
> plane or the concept of driving the seat proposed as significant
> indicators of good technique.

Hi Carl,

I personally like the late body opening style of power application - best
example I've seen in a 1x is Rumyana Neykova.

I think that this style, whilst not for everyone, encourages the "hang" on
the handle often talked about, gives more space to manage the cross-over of
the handles, and maintaining a horizontal action.

Looking forward to discussing such issues over cucumber sandwiches and Earl
grey tea at Stracthclyde Park.

(or a deep fried Mars bar and pint of 80 shilling if you prefer the "when in
Rome" approach)
Neil




29 Jul 2005 04:14:18
Re: Rig Height


Neil Wallace wrote:
> anton2468@aol.com wrote:
> (snip)
> > Lightweight women as Edouard pointed out do tend to row further
> > throught the work as they do not have the upper body strength of a
> > Mueller or Hacker to muscle the finish.
>
>
> Marcel Hacker has a very delicate finish IMO.

So does Xeno but in comparison to the best lightweights their arms
break earlier in the stroke and they use them more. It does not mean
they are not smooth and precise.



29 Jul 2005 14:07:34
Jay L
Re: Rig Height

<ample snippage >
> This raises another, more philosophical, issue:
> LW women (& men) pull with but a fraction of the force generated by such
> as Marcel Hacker. Yet they use blades & rigs which are virtually
> identical in size & proportion to the big boys. Doesn't this seem odd?
>
> Couple this with Anton's observations on the relatively wide range of
> body action of the lighties, as compared to the heavies. So both seem
> perhaps to be achieving the same angular range from catch to finish with
> teh same rigs but by different means. Can that make sense?
>
> Thus at the same rating the big guy has far larger blade loadings than
> the small girl & leaves disproportionately larger puddles. The bigger
> puddles are because his blade slip is much greater as well as more
> forceful. So despite his more powerful stroke his propulsive efficiency
> has to be lower, because he is throwing more work away in unproductive
> slip (work lost = slip distance x force).
>
> So shouldn't teh big guys think about reproportioning their rigs - wider
> spreads, longer sticks, but similar inboard/outboard ratios - &
> reproportioning their stroke lengths accordingly? Or do they feel not
> feel the need to go faster?
>
> Cheers -
> Carl

When looking at the size of the CII big blade when compared with the
smoothie, it looks like the big blade has more surface area. Could that
be a motivation for the likes of Oxford and Canada using them? Would
that not tie in with the notion that more surface area = less slip (and
take care of some of the re-rig issue)?

Regards

Jay


29 Jul 2005 13:03:25
Carl Douglas
Re: Rig Height

petersr1088@hotmail.com writes
>Carl Douglas wrote:
>>
>> 1. As regards the supposed merits of a fixed back posture:
>> The angular position of the back relative to horizontal plane is
>> sustained only by the rower constantly increasing the angle between
>> thigh & lower back (say L5) as the legs go down.
>>
>> Thus work is done continuously around that joint throughout that part of
>> the stroke to maintain a fixed back inclination as the angle between
>> back & thigh opens out, & there is no definable benefit which can arise
>> out of sustaining any apparently static back inclination.
>>
>> Nor is there any intrinsic mechanical connection between pelvis & boat
>> which might tend to support any particular back posture.
>
>your knees are in a relatively weak position at the catch;

Are they? They are weak relative to when the legs are straightened, for
sure. But weak in the folded position relative to every other muscle
set used in rowing I very much doubt. I think your legs can handle
every load you care to impose on them

But if they were "weak" at full compression, then at what stage would
they cease to be "weak"?

> if you start
>moving the back immediately they will stay in a weak position for more
>of the stroke and your quads will have to provide more force (although
>no more work) to do the same total work in the stroke.

Your quads have only to provide, as a reasonable first approximation,
that force which your arms & hands can hold, because unless that is so
you will not be rowing Put another way, the boat only resists your foot
pressure because the hands are matching that pressure. (We have to
remember that bodily accelerations are rather small in rowing as
compared with jumping, because the boat is light & is free to move away
with the feet - you don't "spring off" the stretcher.)

> This is probably
>not conducive to moving boats, though I don't suppose it's really much
>of an issue for most people - OTOH, LW rowers would be most likely to
>find that a problem.

I'm intrigued as to why LW rowers should find things more (or less)
problematic than others

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



29 Jul 2005 11:43:23
Re: Rig Height

Carl Douglas wrote:
> petersr1088@hotmail.com writes
> >Carl Douglas wrote:
> >>
> >> 1. As regards the supposed merits of a fixed back posture:
> >> The angular position of the back relative to horizontal plane is
> >> sustained only by the rower constantly increasing the angle between
> >> thigh & lower back (say L5) as the legs go down.
> >>
> >> Thus work is done continuously around that joint throughout that part of
> >> the stroke to maintain a fixed back inclination as the angle between
> >> back & thigh opens out, & there is no definable benefit which can arise
> >> out of sustaining any apparently static back inclination.
> >>
> >> Nor is there any intrinsic mechanical connection between pelvis & boat
> >> which might tend to support any particular back posture.
> >
> >your knees are in a relatively weak position at the catch;
>
> Are they? They are weak relative to when the legs are straightened, for
> sure. But weak in the folded position relative to every other muscle
> set used in rowing I very much doubt. I think your legs can handle
> every load you care to impose on them

quads are not all that strong compared to the glutes and hams,
actually. look at the guys who set world records in the deadlift and
you'll see most of them do something close to a straight-leg deadlift,
doing almost all the work with glutes and hams, rather than try to use
the quads much. erectors are also stronger than quads through most of
the stroke, though I don't think I'd want to use them to provide power
in the rowing stroke.

The legs probably can handle load, sure. That doesn't mean it's
necessarily a good idea to impose load unnecessarily. For example (and
I realise this is extreme by comparison) you can row for 30 minutes
rating 20, flat out, fall off the machine at the end of the piece
style. Then you can come back in a week and hold the same power output
rating 26, and it'll feel relatively easy. Same work done (if anything
more work done in the second case as you move yourself up and down the
slide more) but less load imposed on the legs.

> But if they were "weak" at full compression, then at what stage would
> they cease to be "weak"?

wherever you choose to draw the line, if you insist on doing it that
way. Alternatively, draw a secant graph.

> > if you start
> >moving the back immediately they will stay in a weak position for more
> >of the stroke and your quads will have to provide more force (although
> >no more work) to do the same total work in the stroke.
>
> Your quads have only to provide, as a reasonable first approximation,
> that force which your arms & hands can hold, because unless that is so
> you will not be rowing Put another way, the boat only resists your foot
> pressure because the hands are matching that pressure. (We have to
> remember that bodily accelerations are rather small in rowing as
> compared with jumping, because the boat is light & is free to move away
> with the feet - you don't "spring off" the stretcher.)

my quads are not likely to provide 1500N or so of force at any point in
the rowing stroke, that being a force which I can hold with my arms and
hands. arms and hands should not be a limiting factor in rowing, and
they will be so only if you are either very new to the sport and
haven't needed to use grip muscles much before or if you are rowing
badly.

> > This is probably
> >not conducive to moving boats, though I don't suppose it's really much
> >of an issue for most people - OTOH, LW rowers would be most likely to
> >find that a problem.
>
> I'm intrigued as to why LW rowers should find things more (or less)
> problematic than others

LW have the least strength as compared to their power output,
generally. so imposing an extra demand on strength is most likely to
slow down a LW rower.

I do think this is a fairly minor point; there is a small advantage to
not opening the back out at the catch, it reduces the load on your
legs, but it isn't going to make much difference (and I know very well
I do open my back at the catch a bit, anyway).

Pete



31 Jul 2005 11:11:04
mpruscoe
Re: Rig Height

Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
> On 28 Jul 2005 05:23:10 -0700, anton2468@aol.com wrote:
>
>>Very nice position in the Henley photo. Looks like you are driving the
>>seat and holding the body position constant which is also good.
>
>
> Exactly, I think we are both fans of the Italian style.
>
How long will that be the Italian style though:

http://www.fisa.org/news/fullstory.sps?iNewsid=205239&itype=

"The Italian ‘style’ has been known for its two part drive but de Capua
wants to work towards a more fluid movement. “I want to achieve the
right pressure from catch to finish and to do this with harmony. It’s
kind of a dance. You have to dance on the foot stretcher, you have to
let the boat float.”"


31 Jul 2005 11:17:09
mpruscoe
Re: Rig Height

mpruscoe wrote:
> Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
>
>> On 28 Jul 2005 05:23:10 -0700, anton2468@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>> Very nice position in the Henley photo. Looks like you are driving the
>>> seat and holding the body position constant which is also good.
>>
>>
>>
>> Exactly, I think we are both fans of the Italian style.
>>
> How long will that be the Italian style though:
>
> http://www.fisa.org/news/fullstory.sps?iNewsid=205239&itype=
>
> "The Italian ‘style’ has been known for its two part drive but de Capua
> wants to work towards a more fluid movement. “I want to achieve the
> right pressure from catch to finish and to do this with harmony. It’s
> kind of a dance. You have to dance on the foot stretcher, you have to
> let the boat float.”"

Does this maybe mean that we will have heard the last of "the Italians
are sitting very low in the boat..." :)