27 Jul 2005 01:23:50
tokyoglow
Scull - fluidesign

Has anyone got a Fluidesign 1x in the UK / Thames region for
preference? I am thinking of buying one, but would like to try it
first. Or can any rec.sport.rowing readers stateside tell me a little
bit about them?

The bowmounted riggers are a really interesting idea - and being a
complete girl, I like the different colour finishes too.



27 Jul 2005 05:32:41
Re: Scull - fluidesign



tokyoglow wrote:
> Has anyone got a Fluidesign 1x in the UK / Thames region for
> preference? I am thinking of buying one, but would like to try it
> first. Or can any rec.sport.rowing readers stateside tell me a little
> bit about them?
>
> The bowmounted riggers are a really interesting idea - and being a
> complete girl, I like the different colour finishes too.

The GB U23 Lightweight sculler Purchase won the gold in Amsterdam.
Maybe after the worlds u can catch up with him



27 Jul 2005 10:29:54
J Flory
Re: Scull - fluidesign



tokyoglow wrote:
> Has anyone got a Fluidesign 1x in the UK / Thames region for
> preference? I am thinking of buying one, but would like to try it
> first. Or can any rec.sport.rowing readers stateside tell me a little
> bit about them?
>
> The bowmounted riggers are a really interesting idea - and being a
> complete girl, I like the different colour finishes too.

I'm stateside, bought a Fluidesign 2x this spring, and am extremely
pleased. My teammate got a 1x and he likes his too.

(1) both are quite stable (surprising for the 2x because it's a
stretched single and thus is quite narrow) - it's basically just an
Empacher shape with some volume shifted aft, so it's not a radical
design
(2) one expects that not having the rigger in view would be
disconcerting, but it isn't
(3) loosening a single nut allows you to adjust both spread and height
(or you can make smaller height adjustments by moving clips above and
below the oarlock) - pitch is not affected - this is a huge advantage
in a boat used by different people
(4) on the 1x the footstretcher (footstop to you?) bolts through the
hull at the top rather than using toothed tracks, so to prevent it from
coming loose on the water it's a good idea to replace the stock wing
nuts with nyloc locking nuts once you have it where you want it - the
2x uses toothed tracks
(5) at least stateside it comes with Dreher seats, which are very comfy
(6) a "C" cup is used to attach the pin to the rigger, so the pin is
supported at both ends, eliminating pin flex
(7) the stock tracks (rails?) are soft and tend to dent, so replace
them with CD Aussie rails, amazing how much better a boat feels with
smooth quiet tracks

We had a few teething problems but Gord Henry (Fluidesign's owner) has
been completely responsive.



27 Jul 2005 20:00:28
sue t
Re: Scull - fluidesign

Bought my first Fluid in 2000, sight unseen and without a test row.
It was recommended by several top Canadian coaches as the boat to go with.
Recently traded it in for a new one.
Loved the first one and love the new one.
Always excellent service from Gord Henry, including taking my first one on
trade.

..................
sue





30 Jul 2005 02:22:07
Matt Jensen
Re: Scull - fluidesign

Hi,

You might want to contact Darren Whitter. He is the U23/Junior coordinator
(I think) and national team coach. He has a few singles and is also in
possesion of the lwt 2x used by the Canadian team while in Europe. I am not
sure where he is located out of, or were the boats are, but if you can look
him up, that might be your best option.

MPJ


"tokyoglow" <tokyoglow@gmail.com > wrote in news:1122452629.943915.235690
@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Has anyone got a Fluidesign 1x in the UK / Thames region for
> preference? I am thinking of buying one, but would like to try it
> first. Or can any rec.sport.rowing readers stateside tell me a little
> bit about them?
>
> The bowmounted riggers are a really interesting idea - and being a
> complete girl, I like the different colour finishes too.
>
>



30 Jul 2005 16:10:31
oarsman
Re: Scull - fluidesign

I, like Sue, bought mine unseen. Gord is pretty sure of his product
and told me that if I took and didn't like it, he would take it back.
The UK is a bit more of a distance, but he still might be interested in
doing something like that. I love the boat and can't say enough good
things about it.

Bob Eldridge



13 Aug 2005 15:46:15
Mo
Re: Scull - fluidesign

I must say that I really like the narrow design of the fluid 2x's and
2-'s. At first it seems a bit awkward with the rigger behind you but
you get used to it very quickly.
But there are two things about the boat I dont really like:

1. The hull is extremely flexible. I mean, from the outside you can
push it in without a lot of pressure. I dont know that much about
hulldesign, but if I can push the deck about 5cm deep into the boat and
have it pop up with a snapping sound I dont feel that "safe" about that
boat...
But I must also say that those boats run extremely well, if you're not
rowing in bad water.

2. When we rowed the boats, it seemed like instead of tapping down and
lifting the blades out of the water at the finish, we tapped down and
just pushed the boat down... I dont really understand why that happened
but it definitely did. Maybe our tapdowns are just bad? But we never
had those problems in Hudson...



14 Aug 2005 07:00:41
Steven M-M
Re: Scull - fluidesign


sue t wrote:
> Bought my first Fluid in 2000, sight unseen and without a test row.
> It was recommended by several top Canadian coaches as the boat to go with.
> Recently traded it in for a new one.
> Loved the first one and love the new one.
> Always excellent service from Gord Henry, including taking my first one on
> trade.
>
> ..................
> sue

Everyone I know who owns a Fluidesign loves it and likes working with
Gord. (BTW with the missing "d" do you pronounce it "fluee
design" or "fluid eesign"?) Is there really a mechanical
advantage to the bow mounted wing; or, for that matter, the 2-stay
compression riggers?

Sue, why did you need a new one after 4-5 years?

Steven M-M



14 Aug 2005 11:25:58
J Flory
Re: Scull - fluidesign

(1) Yes the hull and deck of the Fluidesign 2x are locally flexible at
the ends, but it's important to remember that the water supporting the
boat exerts pressure over a far larger area than your hand. The
deflection that you feel should not happen in the water. Furthermore,
the ends of the boat carry less loading than the midsection. If you
check the FD hull in the middle of the boat you'll find it's much
stiffer (I just checked mine).

The reason for this flexibility is that FD (and Sharrow) use a coreless
construction to get more latitude in the numbers and weights of
reinforcement fiber layers that they use. They also argue that
coreless hulls are less likely to be damaged by impact because they
flex and because there is no core to be crushed. There are pros and
cons to both methods; time will tell.

Filippi 2x hulls are rigid at the ends. I gently squeezed a King
(single skin wood) and was surprised to find about the same amount of
flexibility as in the FD. [Testing stressed the King's owner as well,
but both he and the hull recovered.] The bow of a Hudson LW 1x was
also squishy, but for a different reason. Hudsons do have a core but
the carbon fibers in their hull run only bow-to-stern, so the hull has
no cross-bracing to stiffen it laterally and relies on the deck for
lateral stiffening.

As you noted, squishiness makes people nervous, especially with
2x/2-'s. The problem is that 2x/2-'s are picked up by the ends so one
feels the flexibility there and instinctively assumes it is
representative of the entire hull.

As for seaworthiness, we have had no problems. The splashbox is lower
than a Filippi's so one may take on more water in rough conditions (on
the other hand the wing riggers may drag less in waves). But no
problems tracking in nasty conditions.

(2) At least 11 people have rowed in or borrowed my FD 2x for workouts
and races and none of them have experienced this problem. Most of them
are very experienced scullers that usually row either Filippi or King
2x's. Two HW's who borrowed it said if they weren't rowing smoothly
they could induce porpoising, probably because it needed more flotation
for them (it's a MW). The narrow hull, especially in the bow, may make
it more susceptible to porpoising, especially if one uses a lot of
layback. Or if you were using it as a 2- perhaps it is a problem
specific to FD 2-'s.

Thanks for the post, it got me thinking.



14 Aug 2005 12:34:41
J Flory
Re: Scull - fluidesign

I think you just add in however many D's you feel you need. Gord says
"FluidDesign" so perhaps that's the official version.

I'd appreciate if someone could explain if any particular rigger style
has any mechanical advantage and why, because the explanations I read
generally bamboozle me. Usually someting like "feeding the force into
the boat in the same direction the boat is going..."

As long as the pin is attached firmly to the boat I can't see that
"how" matters from a mechanical-advantage point of view. Obviously the
attachment points must be reinforced and tie into the structure of the
boat, which may affect the weight and weight distribution. And clearly
each rigger design has adjustability and safety pros and cons.

The Fluidesign website (rowfluidesign.com) says that the forward wing
improves balance by centering mass in the boat (fore/aft I assume).
I'd think this would be nullified by the motion of the rower.

As I mentioned in my previous post, the forward wing (and the 2-stay)
enable the pin to be mounted in a cup that supports it at both ends. A
third stay to eliminate pin flex is not needed, so one might save
weight. This can't be done with a stern wing or "conventional" riggers.



15 Aug 2005 04:46:31
mikep
Re: Scull - fluidesign

> As I mentioned in my previous post, the forward wing (and the 2-stay)
> enable the pin to be mounted in a cup that supports it at both ends. A
> third stay to eliminate pin flex is not needed, so one might save
> weight. This can't be done with a stern wing or "conventional" riggers.

The Filippi two stay carbon fibre rigger of "conventional" (non
wing)set up does in fact have the cup mounted pin, you can see a good
photo of it on the Filippi website.

I think Empacher also has a similar set up to the Filippi, if I
remember what I saw at Henley in 2004 is correct. Also the Australian
Rowtech rigger(aluminium) has the cup mounted pin with the
"conventional" positioned two stay rigger, they call it the "Smart"
rigger.

The idea is sound and certainly eliminates the backstay however the
only drawback is when setting the oarlock heights you have to fiddle
with two screws, OK not much hassle when setting up a single but it can
add considerably to the set up time for an VIII, if time is a factor, I
know I've done it. Given the advantages of the design the set up hassle
is minor.



15 Aug 2005 16:07:14
sue t
Re: Scull - fluidesign

I didn't "need" a new one, I WANTED a new one. My first Fluid was one of
the early models. There had been some upgrades in the past 5 years
(improved rigger design, improved footstretcher) and I simply wanted a new
one. I quite liked my old one, it won many races, but I'm spoiled and
wanted a new Fluid under my butt. Gord took my old Fluid on trade, giving
me the same amount of $$ that I paid for it in exchange. How could I lose?

And I love my new one too. Very nice.

On another response, someone indicated they didn't feel safe in the 2x
because they could press the hull in without a lot of pressure. My old
Fluid had a few incidents that would have broken many other hulls.

Someone was once helping me carry my boat to the racks after it had been
washed. They got distracted and let it drop from their shoulder onto a
gravel surface. The shell simply bounced about 3 feet into the air and
rattled back to the ground. The end damage was a chip in the paint on the
stern, where it hit the gravel.

Another time, I fell while carrying it down some concrete stairs. It
dropped about 4 feet to the concrete. After a lot of vocalizing of some
well-known 4-letter words, I got it on stretchers to check what I was sure
would be a hole in the hull. Couldn't find ANY damage though. Not even a
chip.

Another time I was totally involved in doing some racing starts and didn't
pay attention to where I was on the lake. Visually, it appeared I was well
away from shore, but I forgot it was a bay on my one side and BANG, I hit
the boulders at shore's edge, straight on, and came to an immediate full
stop. The bow had about a 3" scratch on its underside from that one. Don't
know if the bow ball saved the rocks from damage, or not.

Clearly, any one of these accidents would have seriously damaged many other
singles, making them unrowable. With the Fluid, the only thing damaged was
my ego. Oh ... and I don't trust others to help me carry my shell anymore!

...................
sue


"Steven M-M" <smm@ku.edu > wrote in message
news:1124028041.426729.138250@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
(snip)
> Sue, why did you need a new one after 4-5 years?
>
> Steven M-M




15 Aug 2005 11:46:24
Steven M-M
Re: Scull - fluidesign

All this discussion sent me to the Fluidesign website. On it is a
figure showing the wetted surface of the 3 hulls by rower weight:
http://www.rowfluidesign.com/information/wettedsurface.html

Help me understand this. By my reading, a 200 lb rower will have a
smaller wetted surface in a lightweight (~2.22 sq. meters) than in the
heavyweight model (~2.35 sq. meters), which is, according to the info,
is optimized for that weight. Am I reading this wrong or is this a
bogus figure?

Steven M-M



15 Aug 2005 12:25:35
J Flory
Re: Scull - fluidesign

I suspect that what is meant is that the respective boats are optimized
for the particular weights listed, and the plots give the wetted areas
at those and other weights. A comparison of wetted area plots for FD
versus other manufacturers' boats of the same weight class would have
been more to the point that the text is arguing.

Since a LW boat is shorter than a HW, its wetted surface will normally
be smaller than the HW's for a given loading (at least until the LW is
submerged and the deck area comes into play!).

A HW in a LW boat will get a smaller wetted area than in a HW boat but
this will be counteracted by:

(a) increased drag if the hull is partly buried at times
(b) pitching fore and aft due to insufficient volume in the bow and
stern to counteract the fore and aft motion of the larger mass of the
rower mass during the stroke
(c) less height above the water which may complicate rigging
(d) probably other things I haven't thought of.



15 Aug 2005 12:30:30
Re: Scull - fluidesign

Just a guess, but it appears that the lines may have been mis-labelled.
i.e. lwt hull should be the top line and the hwt hull should be the
bottom line. Though there may be something else entirely that makes
for an "optimized" condition.

- Paul Smith



15 Aug 2005 12:42:07
J Flory
Re: Scull - fluidesign

Sorry for the confusion, I was unclear. By "conventional" I meant
2-piece riggers composed of a lateral and a sternward tube. I was
thinking of the 2-tube carbon-fiber riggers as "unconventional"
2-piece.

We probably need better terrminology.

I went to the Ausrowtec site but couldn't find an image of their
riggers. Are they similar to the 2-tube carbon fiber but in aluminum,
or they something different?



15 Aug 2005 22:04:19
Carl Douglas
Re: Scull - fluidesign

Steven M-M <smm@ku.edu > writes
>All this discussion sent me to the Fluidesign website. On it is a
>figure showing the wetted surface of the 3 hulls by rower weight:
>http://www.rowfluidesign.com/information/wettedsurface.html
>
>Help me understand this. By my reading, a 200 lb rower will have a
>smaller wetted surface in a lightweight (~2.22 sq. meters) than in the
>heavyweight model (~2.35 sq. meters), which is, according to the info,
>is optimized for that weight. Am I reading this wrong or is this a
>bogus figure?
>

This, I'm afraid, is what happens when people pretend more science than
they know. Let's shovel away some bullshit - I quote from the reference
you give:

"The more wetted surface in the water, the more surface tension,
the less efficient the hull will be."

Surface tension is _not_ what slows the boat down. It plays no part in
fluid drag on shells. Fluid drag is generated, largely, by the shear in
the moving skin of water between the boat's hull surface & the
unaffected bulk fluid further from the boat

Then this:
"Along with an already hydrodynamically advanced hull, the hull
of our boat was refined even more to reduce the wetted surface
and surface tension to an area smaller than other competitive
models of similar size."

So they do really believe it is surface tension! Now comes this bit:

"No matter what length a hull, without an effective method of
reducing wetted surface area, it will not achieve a high level of
performance."

The simple fact of hydrodynamic life is that you can't have a "minimum
wetted surface hull" on a high-performance shell. A minimum wetted
surface hull would be an immersed hemisphere, & such shapes (racing
woks?) are _not_ fast (except to spin). That's because there are many
other factors affecting drag, including the boat length, which affects
wave drag (the wash & swell from a 100kg wok at shell speeds would be
spectacular!), & hull form (including slenderness & shapes of bow &
stern).

The spiel continues:
"These graph and charts show the relationship between the
weight of the rower and the wetted surface that will be present
on the Fluidesign hull. Reduced drag can give a speed
improvement of 5% to 10%. Speed increase comes from a
reduction in wetted surface, meaning less drag."

Err, no. Wetted surface, while important, is not that important! I
can't think of any racing shell whose speed potential is remotely close
to 5%, let alone 10%, better than the rest or even than the worst.

We ought to get real about OTT performance claims. Even a 5% speed
increase in a normal shell would require a power increase well over 16%,
& probably over 18%. Such a speed increase would give you a 100-metre
advantage over 2k. You just don't get such advantages - unless your
previous boat really was a 100kg wok.

I could discuss why the bigger boats should always have more wetted
surface, but I wouldn't want it to get boring.

However, just one little point on rigger design:
The Fluidesign forward-mounted rigger is a perfectly acceptable way to
do the job. But it offers _no_ advantages over any other rigger design
in terms of efficient transfer of energy. The amount of your work
absorbed in deforming most 2- & 3-stay riggers, or the boat, is truly
minuscule, with no meaningful energy loss in loading & unloading the
rigger or surrounding structure. Even on single-strut riggers, which
may flex rather more, the energy lost will be trivial unless extraction
leaves the rigger vibrating. So the directions & number of the stays is
totally irrelevant - even though the longest stress path from pin to
stretcher occurs with the forward-mounted wing. None of which stops the
most ridiculous guff from being put about by some who should know
better. If you're really worried about infinitesimal flexing between
stretcher & point of application of the rigger load to the boat, then
first worry a lot more about how much your oar bends. But you don't,
because that flexure process is nearly perfectly elastic, as is the
flexure of any other part of the boat & rigging, & incurs no losses
unless your technique fails to accommodate it.

What does matter generally in rigging is that the rigger neither flap up
& down, nor twist under load, that its windage & water interference is
small, & that the pin holds its pitch & height. A slim rigger of a
certain design starts at a significant advantage in the windage &
spray-catching stakes.

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)



15 Aug 2005 14:49:21
Re: Scull - fluidesign

Carl,

RSR keeps making the most interesting boat names come to mind.
First there was "Leaky Log", and now "Run, Don't Wok" or "Woks Don't
Run". [;o)

- Paul Smith



15 Aug 2005 14:53:19
Re: Scull - fluidesign


Carl Douglas wrote:
> Steven M-M <smm@ku.edu> writes
> >All this discussion sent me to the Fluidesign website. On it is a
> >figure showing the wetted surface of the 3 hulls by rower weight:
> >http://www.rowfluidesign.com/information/wettedsurface.html
> >
> >Help me understand this. By my reading, a 200 lb rower will have a
> >smaller wetted surface in a lightweight (~2.22 sq. meters) than in the
> >heavyweight model (~2.35 sq. meters), which is, according to the info,
> >is optimized for that weight. Am I reading this wrong or is this a
> >bogus figure?
> >
>
> This, I'm afraid, is what happens when people pretend more science than
> they know. Let's shovel away some bullshit - I quote from the reference
> you give:
>
> "The more wetted surface in the water, the more surface tension,
> the less efficient the hull will be."
>
> Surface tension is _not_ what slows the boat down. It plays no part in
> fluid drag on shells. Fluid drag is generated, largely, by the shear in
> the moving skin of water between the boat's hull surface & the
> unaffected bulk fluid further from the boat
>
> Then this:
> "Along with an already hydrodynamically advanced hull, the hull
> of our boat was refined even more to reduce the wetted surface
> and surface tension to an area smaller than other competitive
> models of similar size."
>
> So they do really believe it is surface tension! Now comes this bit:
>
> "No matter what length a hull, without an effective method of
> reducing wetted surface area, it will not achieve a high level of
> performance."
>
> The simple fact of hydrodynamic life is that you can't have a "minimum
> wetted surface hull" on a high-performance shell. A minimum wetted
> surface hull would be an immersed hemisphere, & such shapes (racing
> woks?) are _not_ fast (except to spin). That's because there are many
> other factors affecting drag, including the boat length, which affects
> wave drag (the wash & swell from a 100kg wok at shell speeds would be
> spectacular!), & hull form (including slenderness & shapes of bow &
> stern).
>
> The spiel continues:
> "These graph and charts show the relationship between the
> weight of the rower and the wetted surface that will be present
> on the Fluidesign hull. Reduced drag can give a speed
> improvement of 5% to 10%. Speed increase comes from a
> reduction in wetted surface, meaning less drag."
>
> Err, no. Wetted surface, while important, is not that important! I
> can't think of any racing shell whose speed potential is remotely close
> to 5%, let alone 10%, better than the rest or even than the worst.
>
> We ought to get real about OTT performance claims. Even a 5% speed
> increase in a normal shell would require a power increase well over 16%,
> & probably over 18%. Such a speed increase would give you a 100-metre
> advantage over 2k. You just don't get such advantages - unless your
> previous boat really was a 100kg wok.
>
> I could discuss why the bigger boats should always have more wetted
> surface, but I wouldn't want it to get boring.
>
> However, just one little point on rigger design:
> The Fluidesign forward-mounted rigger is a perfectly acceptable way to
> do the job. But it offers _no_ advantages over any other rigger design
> in terms of efficient transfer of energy. The amount of your work
> absorbed in deforming most 2- & 3-stay riggers, or the boat, is truly
> minuscule, with no meaningful energy loss in loading & unloading the
> rigger or surrounding structure. Even on single-strut riggers, which
> may flex rather more, the energy lost will be trivial unless extraction
> leaves the rigger vibrating. So the directions & number of the stays is
> totally irrelevant - even though the longest stress path from pin to
> stretcher occurs with the forward-mounted wing. None of which stops the
> most ridiculous guff from being put about by some who should know
> better. If you're really worried about infinitesimal flexing between
> stretcher & point of application of the rigger load to the boat, then
> first worry a lot more about how much your oar bends. But you don't,
> because that flexure process is nearly perfectly elastic, as is the
> flexure of any other part of the boat & rigging, & incurs no losses
> unless your technique fails to accommodate it.
>
> What does matter generally in rigging is that the rigger neither flap up
> & down, nor twist under load, that its windage & water interference is
> small, & that the pin holds its pitch & height. A slim rigger of a
> certain design starts at a significant advantage in the windage &
> spray-catching stakes.
>
> 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)


Its called sales Carl. Bamboozal your client with facts and figures
that they could not possibly understand and they will buy your boat.

I have to say the boats do look nice (not as nice as yours, especially
that black one). But they are "Squidgy" and It makes me feel
uncomfortable when lashing to a trailer or roof rack. I would be
interested to hear what they are like in a cross chop wind. I think the
stern could slide around a bit.

I would be interested to compare a 10 year old CD with a 10 year old
Fluid in a few years...I think I know where my money would be for
Longevity.

Sue t...have you ever been described as accident prone?//



15 Aug 2005 23:44:18
Carl Douglas
Re: Scull - fluidesign

anton2468@aol.com writes
>
>Carl Douglas wrote:
>> Steven M-M <smm@ku.edu> writes

>
>
>Its called sales Carl. Bamboozal your client with facts and figures
>that they could not possibly understand and they will buy your boat.
>
>I have to say the boats do look nice (not as nice as yours, especially
>that black one). But they are "Squidgy" and It makes me feel
>uncomfortable when lashing to a trailer or roof rack. I would be
>interested to hear what they are like in a cross chop wind. I think the
>stern could slide around a bit.
>
>I would be interested to compare a 10 year old CD with a 10 year old
>Fluid in a few years...I think I know where my money would be for
>Longevity.
>
>Sue t...have you ever been described as accident prone?//
>


Lest I be thought churlish, please let me explain:

I've wasted much of the last 3 weeks to solve an intermittent problem
with a product, the which problem I now I find also affects some other
users, yet the manufacturer seems not to recognise that there is a
problem. Getting it technically right really does matter, especially
when one has made a big investment. Now I've found out why my machine
was playing up & fixed it at my own expense, I'm feeling a bit crusty &
a bit knackered. At such times, ludicrous & quasi-technological claims
for performance tend to get up the nose.

I've nothing against the Fluidesign boats, which clearly have a
dedicated following & whose builder clearly gives good customer support.
I just ask that they don't parade nonsense as "technical info." It's an
embarrassment &, because it confuses the public, it makes it that much
harder talk straight & to improve what we all do. Rowing is far too
fond of junk spouted as science, so I'd encourage its suppliers (as well
as its administrators) to refrain from spouting arrant nonsense as
technical fact. Fat chance of that, I suppose :(

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)



15 Aug 2005 22:12:11
Re: Scull - fluidesign

>
> I went to the Ausrowtec site but couldn't find an image of their
> riggers. Are they similar to the 2-tube carbon fiber but in aluminum,
> or they something different?

MIKEP here, emailing from work hence different log in signature.

Sorry, I gave you a bum steer, the company should have been Rigtec for
the aluminium riggers.

This is a NZ engineering company that has a range of activities,
riggers is one of them. Their website is www.rigtec.co.nz the rigger
portion of the site shows nothing really.

You can see a photo of a rigger by going to
www.elderrowing.com/boat.htm scroll down to Rigtec Riggers.

The method of securing the rigger to the boat in the photo seems to be
an Elder Boats design. The boats I have, use the more standard flat
plate bolted through the boat into the rib design.



15 Aug 2005 22:24:43
Re: Scull - fluidesign


>
> You can see a photo of a rigger by going to
> www.elderrowing.com/boat.htm scroll down to Rigtec Riggers.
>


Sorry again, Elder Rowing website is www.elderrowing.com/boats.htm