http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/olympics/article4649120.ece

Not one of yours I presume Carl.

But honestly, I can see reduced drag and wind resistance being an issue at
200mph in the formula 1 example mentioned, but at 12mph?

On 8 Sep, 17:51, "Christopher Anton" <c.an...@NOSPAM.blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/olympics/article4649120.ece
>
> Not one of yours I presume Carl.
>
> But honestly, I can see reduced drag and wind resistance being an issue at
> 200mph in the formula 1 example mentioned, but at 12mph?

12 + any head wind.

Also, rowers trying to move boats through water operate at extreme
limit of sustainable power output. Any power dissipated (ie through
drag) is felt disproportionately. By comparison, a car can generate
vastly more power than needed to move through air at the touch of the
accelerator.
Kit

On Sep 8, 9:51 am, "Christopher Anton"
<c.an...@NOSPAM.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/olympics/article4649120.ece
>
> Not one of yours I presume Carl.
>
> But honestly, I can see reduced drag and wind resistance being an issue at
> 200mph in the formula 1 example mentioned, but at 12mph?

It would appear that someone made a lot of money for not much value
delivered. While I have no doubt that there are benefits to
aerodynamically sound designs for riggers, I have just as little doubt
that a "revolutionary" improvement would look so similar to what is
already out there, as far as wing riggers go. There can be no
argument for weight savings as the boat must weigh to a minimum
standard. Unless they went the other direction and made things
heavier, which could have a beneficial effect. Now that would be
revolutionary indeed!

In any case, the fat end of the oar indicated that deep concern for
aerodynamic drag couldn't have been that great of a priority, didn't
it?

I'm pretty sure that if I paid that much for the riggers, Carl would
likely throw in the boat as a bonus. [:o)

- Paul Smith

paul_v_smith@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Sep 8, 9:51 am, "Christopher Anton"
> <c.an...@NOSPAM.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/olympics/article4649120.ece
>>
>> Not one of yours I presume Carl.
>>
>> But honestly, I can see reduced drag and wind resistance being an issue at
>> 200mph in the formula 1 example mentioned, but at 12mph?
>
> It would appear that someone made a lot of money for not much value
> delivered. While I have no doubt that there are benefits to
> aerodynamically sound designs for riggers, I have just as little doubt
> that a "revolutionary" improvement would look so similar to what is
> already out there, as far as wing riggers go. There can be no
> argument for weight savings as the boat must weigh to a minimum
> standard. Unless they went the other direction and made things
> heavier, which could have a beneficial effect. Now that would be
> revolutionary indeed!
>
> In any case, the fat end of the oar indicated that deep concern for
> aerodynamic drag couldn't have been that great of a priority, didn't
> it?
>
> I'm pretty sure that if I paid that much for the riggers, Carl would
> likely throw in the boat as a bonus. [:o)
>
> - Paul Smith


This is one of those cases where the publicity, especially the emphasis
on cost, does the sport no good at all. It gives the sense that GBR is
buying results at any cost, & doing so without much engagement of the brain.

I note that these fairly thin riggers all required backstays of about
the same frontal depth as the rigger. Now, if windage was an issue at
any time during the racing, wouldn't it have been wiser, if spending
such a fortune, to have designed riggers stiff enough to remove the need
for backstays?

Meanwhile no attention was paid to hydrodynamics, the biggest drag
source. Nor to a few dozen other more costly sources of drag. How strange!

So I think the GBR squad &/or its sponsors were taken for a massive
ride, if that really was the price. Mind you, I don't expect to make
too many friends by saying so. But, as an engineer, I do still value
engineering truth above influence & bullshit.

So, isn't it odd? Without bothering to discuss what might be done, &
what it might be most effective to do, with those of us who have
demonstrated _real_ expertise in designing and creating true performance
enhancement systems and methods (& done so at low cost & in short order
when asked) they went out to an organisation which, while highly
competent composites fabricators, has no prior involvement in the sport?

When we created the AeRowFin in 2000, its effect on the behaviour &
performance of the GBR men's eight was strikingly good. When the
sailors wandered round at the pre-Sydney GBR training camp to check out
all the bragged-about high-tech rowing kit (& sailors are very
particular & expert about "appendages", as they call them) they were
singularly unimpressed - until they saw our AeRowFin. Then they said,
"Now that, at least, makes sense". So for the next 5 years, despite the
Sydney M8+ gold, the GBR squad ignored the AeRowFin and went back to
tin-plate fins & rudders! Until, ~2 years ago, some consultants were
brought in by the GBR team. When shown the AeRowFin, lying neglected in
a toolbox, they said, "Why aren't you using that?". So AeRowFins were
fitted to the leading boats & everyone immediately liked the result.

What you know about Brits is that we love to crap on each other. We're
the world's experts at the very British game where the amateur treats
the professional with patronising disdain. And we love to export the
jobs of those who helped us last year, or even last week. In short, our
instant experts are smugly confident that they know best & that what
some British boffin devised & developed can only be any good if copied
by foreigners so it can bought from elsewhere with our public funds.
Only then will we accept it as kosher. And that, with the honourable
exception of the GBR M8, was how it went this year.

It is a funny thing about GB (& other) rowers that we fear to use what
others are not using lest it not give the special benefits we seek. We
prefer to keep tight hold on nurse for fear of finding something worse.
And we prefer to stay ignorant. Only when others say it's OK do we
really accept anything novel - unless the principle novelty is in
appearance rather than actual function. Thus we seat race crews to
destruction but switch off our critical faculties when choosing kit. So
we participate in a highly-mechanical, aerohydrodynamics-based activity,
yet are proud to know nowt of the relevant sciences & proclaim that the
only way to go faster is just to pull harder (& not even to explore ways
to pull more intelligently). Thus, e.g., the vast majority of those in
our sport still reckon that rowing works by pushing water backwards &
making big puddles. Welcome to the kindergarten!

I recall, not many weeks ago, being asked on RSR how I could suggest
that this sport was failing to develop its equipment. Well, in this
thieves paradise where good ideas are readily stolen, I've learned that
helping to evolved radical equipment is not something which pays, so I'd
rather keep my best ideas under wraps until a suitable and suitably
rewarding opportunity presents itself.

As a last comment, a bit off beam but still relevant:
Some will recall that the British Olympic Association in 2001 threatened
a number of us who had helped the GBR rowing squad with unlimited fines
& imprisonment (I kid you not) for supposedly making an association
between our products & the Olympic Games. Actually, we had done no such
thing, and our comments had been limited solely to fair reportage. So I
am intrigued to see how, in that Times article, a named firm gets to
directly associate its name with OG success while bragging about the
money it cost the squad. That seems distinctly contrary to the
ill-begotten "Olympic Symbols Act". As does the proliferation of
Olympic references in the naming & advertising of equipment that I see
in the latest edition of the ARA's R&R magazine. So what's up?

[ RQ: there's another rant which you are most welcome to publish ;) ]

Cheers -
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Find: http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
Email: carl@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)

On Sep 8, 11:25 pm, Carl Douglas <c...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote:
> paul_v_sm...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Sep 8, 9:51 am, "Christopher Anton"
> > <c.an...@NOSPAM.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/olympics/article4649120.ece
>
> >> Not one of yours I presume Carl.
>
> >> But honestly, I can see reduced drag and wind resistance being an issue at
> >> 200mph in the formula 1 example mentioned, but at 12mph?
>
> > It would appear that someone made a lot of money for not much value
> > delivered.  While I have no doubt that there are benefits to
> > aerodynamically sound designs for riggers, I have just as little doubt
> > that a "revolutionary" improvement would look so similar to what is
> > already out there, as far as wing riggers go.  There can be no
> > argument for weight savings as the boat must weigh to a minimum
> > standard.  Unless they went the other direction and made things
> > heavier, which could have a beneficial effect.  Now that would be
> > revolutionary indeed!
>
> > In any case, the fat end of the oar indicated that deep concern for
> > aerodynamic drag couldn't have been that great of a priority, didn't
> > it?
>
> > I'm pretty sure that if I paid that much for the riggers, Carl would
> > likely throw in the boat as a bonus.  [:o)
>
> > - Paul Smith
>
> This is one of those cases where the publicity, especially the emphasis
> on cost, does the sport no good at all.  It gives the sense that GBR is
> buying results at any cost, & doing so without much engagement of the brain.
>
> I note that these fairly thin riggers all required backstays of about
> the same frontal depth as the rigger.  Now, if windage was an issue at
> any time during the racing, wouldn't it have been wiser, if spending
> such a fortune, to have designed riggers stiff enough to remove the need
> for backstays?
>
> Meanwhile no attention was paid to hydrodynamics, the biggest drag
> source.  Nor to a few dozen other more costly sources of drag.  How strange!
>
> So I think the GBR squad &/or its sponsors were taken for a massive
> ride, if that really was the price.  Mind you, I don't expect to make
> too many friends by saying so.  But, as an engineer, I do still value
> engineering truth above influence & bullshit.
>
> So, isn't it odd?  Without bothering to discuss what might be done, &
> what it might be most effective to do, with those of us who have
> demonstrated _real_ expertise in designing and creating true performance
> enhancement systems and methods (& done so at low cost & in short order
> when asked) they went out to an organisation which, while highly
> competent composites fabricators, has no prior involvement in the sport?
>
> When we created the AeRowFin in 2000, its effect on the behaviour &
> performance of the GBR men's eight was strikingly good.  When the
> sailors wandered round at the pre-Sydney GBR training camp to check out
> all the bragged-about high-tech rowing kit (& sailors are very
> particular & expert about "appendages", as they call them) they were
> singularly unimpressed - until they saw our AeRowFin.  Then they said,
> "Now that, at least, makes sense".  So for the next 5 years, despite the
> Sydney M8+ gold, the GBR squad ignored the AeRowFin and went back to
> tin-plate fins & rudders!  Until, ~2 years ago, some consultants were
> brought in by the GBR team.  When shown the AeRowFin, lying neglected in
> a toolbox, they said, "Why aren't you using that?".  So AeRowFins were
> fitted to the leading boats & everyone immediately liked the result.
>
> What you know about Brits is that we love to crap on each other.  We're
> the world's experts at the very British game where the amateur treats
> the professional with patronising disdain.  And we love to export the
> jobs of those who helped us last year, or even last week.  In short, our
> instant experts are smugly confident that they know best & that what
> some British boffin devised & developed can only be any good if copied
> by foreigners so it can bought from elsewhere with our public funds.
> Only then will we accept it as kosher.  And that, with the honourable
> exception of the GBR M8, was how it went this year.
>
> It is a funny thing about GB (& other) rowers that we fear to use what
> others are not using lest it not give the special benefits we seek.  We
> prefer to keep tight hold on nurse for fear of finding something worse.
>   And we prefer to stay ignorant.  Only when others say it's OK do we
> really accept anything novel - unless the principle novelty is in
> appearance rather than actual function.  Thus we seat race crews to
> destruction but switch off our critical faculties when choosing kit.  So
> we participate in a highly-mechanical, aerohydrodynamics-based activity,
> yet are proud to know nowt of the relevant sciences & proclaim that the
> only way to go faster is just to pull harder (& not even to explore ways
> to pull more intelligently).  Thus, e.g., the vast majority of those in
> our sport still reckon that rowing works by pushing water backwards &
> making big puddles.  Welcome to the kindergarten!
>
> I recall, not many weeks ago, being asked on RSR how I could suggest
> that this sport was failing to develop its equipment.  Well, in this
> thieves paradise where good ideas are readily stolen, I've learned that
> helping to evolved radical equipment is not something which pays, so I'd
> rather keep my best ideas under wraps until a suitable and suitably
> rewarding opportunity presents itself.
>
> As a last comment, a bit off beam but still relevant:
> Some will recall that the British Olympic Association in 2001 threatened
> a number of us who had helped the GBR rowing squad with unlimited fines
> & imprisonment (I kid you not) for supposedly making an association
> between our products & the Olympic Games.  Actually, we had done no such
> thing, and our comments had been limited solely to fair reportage.  So I
> am intrigued to see how, in that Times article, a named firm gets to
> directly associate its name with OG success while bragging about the
> money it cost the squad.  That seems distinctly contrary to the
> ill-begotten "Olympic Symbols Act".  As does the proliferation of
> Olympic references in the naming & advertising of equipment that I see
> in the latest edition of the ARA's R&R magazine.  So what's up?
>
> [ RQ:  there's another rant which you are most welcome to publish ;) ]
>
> Cheers -
> Carl
> --
> Carl Douglas Racing Shells        -
>      Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
> Write:   Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
> Find:    http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
> Email: c...@carldouglas.co.uk  Tel: +44(0)1932-570946  Fax: -563682
> URLs:  www.carldouglas.co.uk(boats) &www.aerowing.co.uk(riggers)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Carl, after all these years in the sport you should know that making
rowing boats go faster is more art than science, and at the pinnacle
of art there's no limit, so a few grand sounds cheap to me.

On Sep 9, 2:29 pm, MagnusBurbanks <magn...@f2s.com> wrote:
> On Sep 8, 11:25 pm, Carl Douglas <c...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > paul_v_sm...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sep 8, 9:51 am, "Christopher Anton"
> > > <c.an...@NOSPAM.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > >>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/olympics/article4649120.ece
>
> > >> Not one of yours I presume Carl.
>
> > >> But honestly, I can see reduced drag and wind resistance being an issue at
> > >> 200mph in the formula 1 example mentioned, but at 12mph?
>
> > > It would appear that someone made a lot of money for not much value
> > > delivered.  While I have no doubt that there are benefits to
> > > aerodynamically sound designs for riggers, I have just as little doubt
> > > that a "revolutionary" improvement would look so similar to what is
> > > already out there, as far as wing riggers go.  There can be no
> > > argument for weight savings as the boat must weigh to a minimum
> > > standard.  Unless they went the other direction and made things
> > > heavier, which could have a beneficial effect.  Now that would be
> > > revolutionary indeed!
>
> > > In any case, the fat end of the oar indicated that deep concern for
> > > aerodynamic drag couldn't have been that great of a priority, didn't
> > > it?
>
> > > I'm pretty sure that if I paid that much for the riggers, Carl would
> > > likely throw in the boat as a bonus.  [:o)
>
> > > - Paul Smith
>
> > This is one of those cases where the publicity, especially the emphasis
> > on cost, does the sport no good at all.  It gives the sense that GBR is
> > buying results at any cost, & doing so without much engagement of the brain.
>
> > I note that these fairly thin riggers all required backstays of about
> > the same frontal depth as the rigger.  Now, if windage was an issue at
> > any time during the racing, wouldn't it have been wiser, if spending
> > such a fortune, to have designed riggers stiff enough to remove the need
> > for backstays?
>
> > Meanwhile no attention was paid to hydrodynamics, the biggest drag
> > source.  Nor to a few dozen other more costly sources of drag.  Howstrange!
>
> > So I think the GBR squad &/or its sponsors were taken for a massive
> > ride, if that really was the price.  Mind you, I don't expect to make
> > too many friends by saying so.  But, as an engineer, I do still value
> > engineering truth above influence & bullshit.
>
> > So, isn't it odd?  Without bothering to discuss what might be done, &
> > what it might be most effective to do, with those of us who have
> > demonstrated _real_ expertise in designing and creating true performance
> > enhancement systems and methods (& done so at low cost & in short order
> > when asked) they went out to an organisation which, while highly
> > competent composites fabricators, has no prior involvement in the sport?
>
> > When we created the AeRowFin in 2000, its effect on the behaviour &
> > performance of the GBR men's eight was strikingly good.  When the
> > sailors wandered round at the pre-Sydney GBR training camp to check out
> > all the bragged-about high-tech rowing kit (& sailors are very
> > particular & expert about "appendages", as they call them) they were
> > singularly unimpressed - until they saw our AeRowFin.  Then they said,
> > "Now that, at least, makes sense".  So for the next 5 years, despite the
> > Sydney M8+ gold, the GBR squad ignored the AeRowFin and went back to
> > tin-plate fins & rudders!  Until, ~2 years ago, some consultants were
> > brought in by the GBR team.  When shown the AeRowFin, lying neglectedin
> > a toolbox, they said, "Why aren't you using that?".  So AeRowFins were
> > fitted to the leading boats & everyone immediately liked the result.
>
> > What you know about Brits is that we love to crap on each other.  We're
> > the world's experts at the very British game where the amateur treats
> > the professional with patronising disdain.  And we love to export the
> > jobs of those who helped us last year, or even last week.  In short, our
> > instant experts are smugly confident that they know best & that what
> > some British boffin devised & developed can only be any good if copied
> > by foreigners so it can bought from elsewhere with our public funds.
> > Only then will we accept it as kosher.  And that, with the honourable
> > exception of the GBR M8, was how it went this year.
>
> > It is a funny thing about GB (& other) rowers that we fear to use what
> > others are not using lest it not give the special benefits we seek.  We
> > prefer to keep tight hold on nurse for fear of finding something worse.
> >   And we prefer to stay ignorant.  Only when others say it's OK do we
> > really accept anything novel - unless the principle novelty is in
> > appearance rather than actual function.  Thus we seat race crews to
> > destruction but switch off our critical faculties when choosing kit.  So
> > we participate in a highly-mechanical, aerohydrodynamics-based activity,
> > yet are proud to know nowt of the relevant sciences & proclaim that the
> > only way to go faster is just to pull harder (& not even to explore ways
> > to pull more intelligently).  Thus, e.g., the vast majority of those in
> > our sport still reckon that rowing works by pushing water backwards &
> > making big puddles.  Welcome to the kindergarten!
>
> > I recall, not many weeks ago, being asked on RSR how I could suggest
> > that this sport was failing to develop its equipment.  Well, in this
> > thieves paradise where good ideas are readily stolen, I've learned that
> > helping to evolved radical equipment is not something which pays, so I'd
> > rather keep my best ideas under wraps until a suitable and suitably
> > rewarding opportunity presents itself.
>
> > As a last comment, a bit off beam but still relevant:
> > Some will recall that the British Olympic Association in 2001 threatened
> > a number of us who had helped the GBR rowing squad with unlimited fines
> > & imprisonment (I kid you not) for supposedly making an association
> > between our products & the Olympic Games.  Actually, we had done no such
> > thing, and our comments had been limited solely to fair reportage.  So I
> > am intrigued to see how, in that Times article, a named firm gets to
> > directly associate its name with OG success while bragging about the
> > money it cost the squad.  That seems distinctly contrary to the
> > ill-begotten "Olympic Symbols Act".  As does the proliferation of
> > Olympic references in the naming & advertising of equipment that I see
> > in the latest edition of the ARA's R&R magazine.  So what's up?
>
> > [ RQ:  there's another rant which you are most welcome to publish ;) ]
>
> > Cheers -
> > Carl
> > --
> > Carl Douglas Racing Shells        -
> >      Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
> > Write:   Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
> > Find:    http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
> > Email: c...@carldouglas.co.uk  Tel: +44(0)1932-570946  Fax: -563682
> > URLs:  www.carldouglas.co.uk(boats) &www.aerowing.co.uk(riggers)-Hidequoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Carl, after all these years in the sport you should know that making
> rowing boats go faster is more art than science, and at the pinnacle
> of art there's no limit, so a few grand sounds cheap to me.

and exactly as with fashionable art, the buck/bang function in the
business case gets inverted ..... ie the MORE I spend, on my Hirst or
my outrigger, the better a purchase I've made.

At some point I reckon your team sponsor is not so much actually
"buying medals" as buying faith, in the belief [intuitively attractive
but not AFAIK very well quantified] that the enhanced faith, of a crew
which has had its bow coaming lovingly moulded to the bowperson's
nether cheeks, will translate into medals?

Richard

"Carl Douglas" <carl@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ga48pj$f5h$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
> paul_v_smith@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Meanwhile no attention was paid to hydrodynamics, the biggest drag source.
> Nor to a few dozen other more costly sources of drag. How strange!

mega-snip

>

But is it likely to have saved the reputed 0.5 to 0.75s. That seems a large
and very imprecise figure to me.

On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 17:43:22 +0100, Christopher Anton wrote
(in article <_Ixxk.37671$nh3.23734@newsfe28.ams2>):

>
> "Carl Douglas" <carl@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ga48pj$f5h$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>> paul_v_smith@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Meanwhile no attention was paid to hydrodynamics, the biggest drag source.
>> Nor to a few dozen other more costly sources of drag. How strange!
>
> mega-snip
>
>>
>
> But is it likely to have saved the reputed 0.5 to 0.75s. That seems a large
> and very imprecise figure to me.

Skinsuits and time-trial helmets on backwards would probably have helped
more. Still, each to their own!
--
simonk