The following is my account of a conversation I had with Gordon Hamilton
last week. Perhaps someone on rsr will find it interesting.

----------------------
Lesson with Gordon Hamilton: Argument for an Easy Beginning.

It was a brief lesson. We rowed over to the Belvedere side and back. Gordon
watched and encouraged.

The important part of the lesson began in the boathouse before we even got
out on the water.

I had asked for this lesson because I wanted to verify that I had understood
what Gordon has been trying to teach me about sculling. So we began by
reviewing the notes of my last lesson with him (2 September).

Until this last lesson, I told Gordon, I had never really understood what
was meant by bladework. It seemed to me that everything he tried to get me
to do in that lesson was subordinate to a single goal, to working the oars
to the move the blades well. Clean entry, no splashes! Clean release, no
boiling water! Blades off the water during the recovery! Staying on the pins
during the recovery! Holding the blades square and off the water at the
entry, again so that you get a clean entry, no splashes!

Gordon smiled.

"All true, Charles, that's it. That's what we've been working on."

"The one thing that seems to me particularly enlightening is your insistence
on waiting until the oar handles come to you before beginning the drive. I
think this is going to create a lot of controversy. Advocates for a hard
beginning are going to object. They set great store in a quick catch and
preach that the way to it is full pressure instantaneously on the
footstretcher at entry."

"You can be sure that there will always be those who think that the only way
to go fast is to explode off the footstretcher."

"But if I understand you, you're disagreeing. You're saying that exploding
off the foot stretcher is not the way to go fast."

"It certainly is not."

"You're saying that we should wait for the oar handles to start moving
towards us, then add our own power to this movement."

"Yes I am."

"But if I understand you, you are also saying that you don't want us to slam
back against the pins."

"Of course I don't."

"So, as we feel the oar handles come to us, you don't want us to add all our
power all at once. Is this right?"

"Yes."

But Gordon looked puzzled.

"Gordon, what I am thinking of is Dr. Warre's description of the traditional
way to move a racing shell: 'An easy beginning, a strong drive with the
legs, and a sharp finish to follow.' I have never quite understood what
Dr. Warre meant by an easy beginning. But it seems to me that you, like Dr.
Warre, also are advocating an easy beginning. So I want see if I can come up
with modern terminology that might convey what you and Dr. Warre mean by
this phrase. And what I have come up with is that at the beginning of the
drive you want to load the pins in proportion to the load building on the
blades. I wonder if this makes sense. Because this is something I can
understand. The blades don't lock on instantaneously. It takes time for them
to lock on. The point is that locking on is a process, and if you pull too
hard on the oar handles during this process, the blades will lose hold of
the water."

"Yes. That's why I say wait until you feel the oar handles start moving
towards you, then join that movement. It should be an effortless, easy
joining. You should add your power to the boat's momentum. The goal should
be to disturb this momentum as little as possible."

"In the past you compared blade entry to turning a spinning wheel."

"Exactly! The wheel is turning, and what you want to do is join that
movement and keep the wheel spinning. You can even spin it harder if you
want. But the point is to keep it spinning without disturbing its momentum."

"I am beginning to understand," I said. "To me what really brings this home
is backing up. When I first started sculling Carl's boat I had trouble
backing up. In fact I could hardly back up at all. The shell responded to my
slightest movement. I just couldn't seem to stabilize it. It rolled almost
without provocation. I couldn't get the blades out of the water. No matter
how hard I tried I couldn't build up any speed. So one morning I decided to
really work on backing up. I very deliberately slowed everything down and
just watched the blades. What I discovered was that after I immersed the
blades and they had caught water, the oar handles without any pushing on my
part would move towards the stern, which is exactly the direction I wanted
to move them in. To go faster all I had to do was let them start moving by
themselves, then very smoothly add my own power to this movement, initially
pushing on the oar handles easily, but eventually pushing on them harder and
harder. And if I had the discipline to do this, if I could just rationally
accelerate the oar handles towards the stern, I could eventually go faster
and faster. So backing up taught me how to apply pressure to the oar
handles."

"I'm glad you brought up the idea of backing up," said Gordon. "I used to
teach this all time. I would have people practice backing up because it was
the simplest way to get someone to understand how to apply pressure to the
oar handles. Backing up teaches you to wait for the oar handles to move in
the direction you want to go before pushing on them. As you've seen for
yourself, you don't want to begin backing up with a hard push. Similarly you
don't want to begin the drive with a hard pull. The correct way is to join
the movement of the oar handles."

"Doesn't this all come down to a matter of timing?" I asked. "In backing up
you have to time the push against the oar handles to the load building up
against the back of the blades. Isn't it the same thing to move a boat
forward? You have to time the load you put on the pins to the load building
up on the blades? What does a hard beginning get you? Load the pins too
hard, too suddenly, and all you do is set water in motion and shovel it
along past the side of the boat, and go nowhere. Whereas what you really
want to do is stick the blade into a given spot in the water and to lift the
boat as far and as quickly as possible past that spot. The idea of rowing
is to move the boat, not shovel water."

Gordon's smile was incredibly encouraging. I decided to add one last
thought.

"If you want to go fast, work on your entry," I continued. "The faster the
entry, the faster the blades load, the faster you can apply full pressure. A
fast entry is a quick catch. But even so, no matter how quickly the blades
load, you have to begin easily. It is a waste of effort to try to apply full
pressure instantaneously against the pins, even if you could, which you can't
because physically it is impossible. You have to wait to apply full pressure
against the pins until the blades are fully loaded."

"Otherwise," said Gordon, "you won't be getting all you can out of your
stroke. You've got it, Charles. That's what I have been trying to teach you.
Now let's get out on the water."

---------------------------
Conclusion:

Pressure applied to the pins is effective in moving a racing shell in
proportion to the pressure built up against the blades.

For example, full pressure applied against the pins is most effective in
moving a racing shell speedily forward when the blades are fully loaded. It
is least effective when the blades are is just beginning the process of
loading.

Herberger, et al. are right to consider the "thrust-stroke" (Schubschlag)
superior to the "solid stroke with hard beginning" (Kernschlag) because with
a thrust-stroke "the onward-speeding boat is accelerated rationally to the
end of propulsion" and thus all of the sculler's effort goes into moving the
boat. None of it is wasted in shoveling water.

Well I go along with this generally, but easy on the catch isn't usually
my main concern during a 500m sprint race, like it might be in a head
race. You have to modify how you scull to the conditions and what you
are trying to achieve. Likewise in a tailwind you have to drive earlier.

David.


Charles Carroll wrote:
> The following is my account of a conversation I had with Gordon Hamilton
> last week. Perhaps someone on rsr will find it interesting.
>
> ----------------------
> Lesson with Gordon Hamilton: Argument for an Easy Beginning.
>
> It was a brief lesson. We rowed over to the Belvedere side and back.
> Gordon watched and encouraged.
>
> The important part of the lesson began in the boathouse before we even
> got out on the water.
>
> I had asked for this lesson because I wanted to verify that I had
> understood what Gordon has been trying to teach me about sculling. So we
> began by reviewing the notes of my last lesson with him (2 September).
>
> Until this last lesson, I told Gordon, I had never really understood
> what was meant by bladework. It seemed to me that everything he tried to
> get me to do in that lesson was subordinate to a single goal, to working
> the oars to the move the blades well. Clean entry, no splashes! Clean
> release, no boiling water! Blades off the water during the recovery!
> Staying on the pins during the recovery! Holding the blades square and
> off the water at the entry, again so that you get a clean entry, no
> splashes!
>
> Gordon smiled.
>
> "All true, Charles, that's it. That's what we've been working on."
>
> "The one thing that seems to me particularly enlightening is your
> insistence on waiting until the oar handles come to you before beginning
> the drive. I think this is going to create a lot of controversy.
> Advocates for a hard beginning are going to object. They set great store
> in a quick catch and preach that the way to it is full pressure
> instantaneously on the footstretcher at entry."
>
> "You can be sure that there will always be those who think that the only
> way to go fast is to explode off the footstretcher."
>
> "But if I understand you, you're disagreeing. You're saying that
> exploding off the foot stretcher is not the way to go fast."
>
> "It certainly is not."
>
> "You're saying that we should wait for the oar handles to start moving
> towards us, then add our own power to this movement."
>
> "Yes I am."
>
> "But if I understand you, you are also saying that you don't want us to
> slam back against the pins."
>
> "Of course I don't."
>
> "So, as we feel the oar handles come to us, you don't want us to add all
> our power all at once. Is this right?"
>
> "Yes."
>
> But Gordon looked puzzled.
>
> "Gordon, what I am thinking of is Dr. Warre's description of the
> traditional way to move a racing shell: 'An easy beginning, a strong
> drive with the legs, and a sharp finish to follow.' I have never quite
> understood what Dr. Warre meant by an easy beginning. But it seems to me
> that you, like Dr. Warre, also are advocating an easy beginning. So I
> want see if I can come up with modern terminology that might convey what
> you and Dr. Warre mean by this phrase. And what I have come up with is
> that at the beginning of the drive you want to load the pins in
> proportion to the load building on the blades. I wonder if this makes
> sense. Because this is something I can understand. The blades don't lock
> on instantaneously. It takes time for them to lock on. The point is that
> locking on is a process, and if you pull too hard on the oar handles
> during this process, the blades will lose hold of the water."
>
> "Yes. That's why I say wait until you feel the oar handles start moving
> towards you, then join that movement. It should be an effortless, easy
> joining. You should add your power to the boat's momentum. The goal
> should be to disturb this momentum as little as possible."
>
> "In the past you compared blade entry to turning a spinning wheel."
>
> "Exactly! The wheel is turning, and what you want to do is join that
> movement and keep the wheel spinning. You can even spin it harder if you
> want. But the point is to keep it spinning without disturbing its
> momentum."
>
> "I am beginning to understand," I said. "To me what really brings this
> home is backing up. When I first started sculling Carl's boat I had
> trouble backing up. In fact I could hardly back up at all. The shell
> responded to my slightest movement. I just couldn't seem to stabilize
> it. It rolled almost without provocation. I couldn't get the blades out
> of the water. No matter how hard I tried I couldn't build up any speed.
> So one morning I decided to really work on backing up. I very
> deliberately slowed everything down and just watched the blades. What I
> discovered was that after I immersed the blades and they had caught
> water, the oar handles without any pushing on my part would move towards
> the stern, which is exactly the direction I wanted to move them in. To
> go faster all I had to do was let them start moving by themselves, then
> very smoothly add my own power to this movement, initially pushing on
> the oar handles easily, but eventually pushing on them harder and
> harder. And if I had the discipline to do this, if I could just
> rationally accelerate the oar handles towards the stern, I could
> eventually go faster and faster. So backing up taught me how to apply
> pressure to the oar handles."
>
> "I'm glad you brought up the idea of backing up," said Gordon. "I used
> to teach this all time. I would have people practice backing up because
> it was the simplest way to get someone to understand how to apply
> pressure to the oar handles. Backing up teaches you to wait for the oar
> handles to move in the direction you want to go before pushing on them.
> As you've seen for yourself, you don't want to begin backing up with a
> hard push. Similarly you don't want to begin the drive with a hard pull.
> The correct way is to join the movement of the oar handles."
>
> "Doesn't this all come down to a matter of timing?" I asked. "In backing
> up you have to time the push against the oar handles to the load
> building up against the back of the blades. Isn't it the same thing to
> move a boat forward? You have to time the load you put on the pins to
> the load building up on the blades? What does a hard beginning get you?
> Load the pins too hard, too suddenly, and all you do is set water in
> motion and shovel it along past the side of the boat, and go nowhere.
> Whereas what you really want to do is stick the blade into a given spot
> in the water and to lift the boat as far and as quickly as possible past
> that spot. The idea of rowing is to move the boat, not shovel water."
>
> Gordon's smile was incredibly encouraging. I decided to add one last
> thought.
>
> "If you want to go fast, work on your entry," I continued. "The faster
> the entry, the faster the blades load, the faster you can apply full
> pressure. A fast entry is a quick catch. But even so, no matter how
> quickly the blades load, you have to begin easily. It is a waste of
> effort to try to apply full pressure instantaneously against the pins,
> even if you could, which you can't because physically it is impossible.
> You have to wait to apply full pressure against the pins until the
> blades are fully loaded."
>
> "Otherwise," said Gordon, "you won't be getting all you can out of your
> stroke. You've got it, Charles. That's what I have been trying to teach
> you. Now let's get out on the water."
>
> ---------------------------
> Conclusion:
>
> Pressure applied to the pins is effective in moving a racing shell in
> proportion to the pressure built up against the blades.
>
> For example, full pressure applied against the pins is most effective in
> moving a racing shell speedily forward when the blades are fully loaded.
> It is least effective when the blades are is just beginning the process
> of loading.
>
> Herberger, et al. are right to consider the "thrust-stroke"
> (Schubschlag) superior to the "solid stroke with hard beginning"
> (Kernschlag) because with a thrust-stroke "the onward-speeding boat is
> accelerated rationally to the end of propulsion" and thus all of the
> sculler's effort goes into moving the boat. None of it is wasted in
> shoveling water.
>
>

David,

I can only report from my own experience. I always go faster, even in a 500m
sprint, if I use my blades properly.

Cordially,

Charles

On Sep 16, 10:13 am, "Charles Carroll" <charles_carr...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> The following is my account of a conversation I had with Gordon Hamilton
> last week. Perhaps someone on rsr will find it interesting.
>
> ----------------------
> Lesson with Gordon Hamilton: Argument for an Easy Beginning.
>
> It was a brief lesson. We rowed over to the Belvedere side and back. Gordon
> watched and encouraged.
>
> The important part of the lesson began in the boathouse before we even got
> out on the water.
>
> I had asked for this lesson because I wanted to verify that I had understood
> what Gordon has been trying to teach me about sculling. So we began by
> reviewing the notes of my last lesson with him (2 September).
>
> Until this last lesson, I told Gordon, I had never really understood what
> was meant by bladework. It seemed to me that everything he tried to get me
> to do in that lesson was subordinate to a single goal, to working the oars
> to the move the blades well. Clean entry, no splashes! Clean release, no
> boiling water! Blades off the water during the recovery! Staying on the pins
> during the recovery! Holding the blades square and off the water at the
> entry, again so that you get a clean entry, no splashes!
>
> Gordon smiled.
>
> "All true, Charles, that's it. That's what we've been working on."
>
> "The one thing that seems to me particularly enlightening is your insistence
> on waiting until the oar handles come to you before beginning the drive. I
> think this is going to create a lot of controversy. Advocates for a hard
> beginning are going to object. They set great store in a quick catch and
> preach that the way to it is full pressure instantaneously on the
> footstretcher at entry."
>
> "You can be sure that there will always be those who think that the only way
> to go fast is to explode off the footstretcher."
>
> "But if I understand you, you're disagreeing. You're saying that exploding
> off the foot stretcher is not the way to go fast."
>
> "It certainly is not."
>
> "You're saying that we should wait for the oar handles to start moving
> towards us, then add our own power to this movement."
>
> "Yes I am."
>
> "But if I understand you, you are also saying that you don't want us to slam
> back against the pins."
>
> "Of course I don't."
>
> "So, as we feel the oar handles come to us, you don't want us to add all our
> power all at once. Is this right?"
>
> "Yes."
>
> But Gordon looked puzzled.
>
> "Gordon, what I am thinking of is Dr. Warre's description of the traditional
> way to move a racing shell: 'An easy beginning, a strong drive with the
> legs, and a sharp finish to follow.'   I have never quite understood what
> Dr. Warre meant by an easy beginning. But it seems to me that you, like Dr.
> Warre, also are advocating an easy beginning. So I want see if I can comeup
> with modern terminology that might convey what you and Dr. Warre mean by
> this phrase. And what I have come up with is that at the beginning of the
> drive you want to load the pins in proportion to the load building on the
> blades. I wonder if this makes sense. Because this is something I can
> understand. The blades don't lock on instantaneously. It takes time for them
> to lock on. The point is that locking on is a process, and if you pull too
> hard on the oar handles during this process, the blades will lose hold of
> the water."
>
> "Yes. That's why I say wait until you feel the oar handles start moving
> towards you, then join that movement. It should be an effortless, easy
> joining. You should add your power to the boat's momentum. The goal should
> be to disturb this momentum as little as possible."
>
> "In the past you compared blade entry to turning a spinning wheel."
>
> "Exactly! The wheel is turning, and what you want to do is join that
> movement and keep the wheel spinning. You can even spin it harder if you
> want. But the point is to keep it spinning without disturbing its momentum."
>
> "I am beginning to understand," I said. "To me what really brings this home
> is backing up. When I first started sculling Carl's boat I had trouble
> backing up. In fact I could hardly back up at all. The shell responded tomy
> slightest movement. I just couldn't seem to stabilize it. It rolled almost
> without provocation. I couldn't get the blades out of the water. No matter
> how hard I tried I couldn't build up any speed. So one morning I decided to
> really work on backing up. I very deliberately slowed everything down and
> just watched the blades. What I discovered was that after I immersed the
> blades and they had caught water, the oar handles without any pushing on my
> part would move towards the stern, which is exactly the direction I wanted
> to move them in. To go faster all I had to do was let them start moving by
> themselves, then very smoothly add my own power to this movement, initially
> pushing on the oar handles easily, but eventually pushing on them harder and
> harder. And if I had the discipline to do this, if I could just rationally
> accelerate the oar handles towards the stern, I could eventually go faster
> and faster. So backing up taught me how to apply pressure to the oar
> handles."
>
> "I'm glad you brought up the idea of backing up," said Gordon. "I used to
> teach this all time. I would have people practice backing up because it was
> the simplest way to get someone to understand how to apply pressure to the
> oar handles. Backing up teaches you to wait for the oar handles to move in
> the direction you want to go before pushing on them. As you've seen for
> yourself, you don't want to begin backing up with a hard push. Similarly you
> don't want to begin the drive with a hard pull. The correct way is to join
> the movement of the oar handles."
>
> "Doesn't this all come down to a matter of timing?" I asked. "In backing up
> you have to time the push against the oar handles to the load building up
> against the back of the blades. Isn't it the same thing to move a boat
> forward? You have to time the load you put on the pins to the load building
> up on the blades? What does a hard beginning get you? Load the pins too
> hard, too suddenly, and all you do is set water in motion and shovel it
> along past the side of the boat, and go nowhere. Whereas what you really
> want to do is stick the blade into a given spot in the water and to lift the
> boat as far and as quickly as possible past that spot.  The idea of rowing
> is to move the boat, not shovel water."
>
> Gordon's smile was incredibly encouraging. I decided to add one last
> thought.
>
> "If you want to go fast, work on your entry," I continued. "The faster the
> entry, the faster the blades load, the faster you can apply full pressure.. A
> fast entry is a quick catch. But even so, no matter how quickly the blades
> load, you have to begin easily. It is a waste of effort to try to apply full
> pressure instantaneously against the pins, even if you could, which you can't
> because physically it is impossible. You have to wait to apply full pressure
> against the pins until the blades are fully loaded."
>
> "Otherwise," said Gordon, "you won't be getting all you can out of your
> stroke. You've got it, Charles. That's what I have been trying to teach you.
> Now let's get out on the water."
>
> ---------------------------
> Conclusion:
>
> Pressure applied to the pins is effective in moving a racing shell in
> proportion to the pressure built up against the blades.
>
> For example, full pressure applied against the pins is most effective in
> moving a racing shell speedily forward when the blades are fully loaded. It
> is least effective when the blades are is just beginning the process of
> loading.
>
> Herberger, et al.  are right to consider the "thrust-stroke" (Schubschlag)
> superior to the "solid stroke with hard beginning" (Kernschlag) because with
> a thrust-stroke "the onward-speeding boat is accelerated rationally  tothe
> end of propulsion" and thus all of the sculler's effort goes into moving the
> boat. None of it is wasted in shoveling water.

Hmm, I'm not sure how to understand the notion of "full pressure"
without the blade being "fully loaded", either the blade supports the
effort or it does not; and there is nowhere like the early part of the
stroke that the blade can support a great deal of pressure. In fact,
if a shaft is going to be broken (by force) it is going to happen long
before the square off. We must not forget that advancing the seat
(more precisely, our Center of Mass), WRT the water, is the goal of
the drive, and by definition it is going to be moving faster than the
hull during the leg drive and the hull will certainly not move
backwards.

While I agree that there should be a feeling of ease at the catch, I
simply can not see how waiting around for any backwatering to occur
could possibly be beneficial. The losses here seem to accumulate
rather quickly, first of all you move the blade enough to avoid
backsplash, and presumably in the same motion hold back from putting
on pressure until feeling the handles moving to you, both of which use
up some portion of the total drive length. Or have I completely
misunderstood what you have said?

Another question that could clarify the situation is: Are you wanting
to learn sculling for pleasure, or speed? Two very different things,
IMO.

- Paul Smith

<paul_v_smith@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9fd5fb26-e1ad-4112-a4c5-27c78738312b@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 16, 10:13 am, "Charles Carroll" <charles_carr...@comcast.net>
wrote:

snip

> Another question that could clarify the situation is: Are you wanting
> to learn sculling for pleasure, or speed? Two very different things,
> IMO.

ah, you beat me to it.

Here are Gordon's own words on the subject:
http://www.cambridge-boat-club.org/Nutshell12.pdf

Charles Carroll wrote:
> The following is my account of a conversation I had with Gordon Hamilton
> last week. Perhaps someone on rsr will find it interesting.
<snipped>

And now some comments on the non-Zen part of this fascinating discussion
(& I do mean fascinating indeed):
> Conclusion:
>
> Pressure applied to the pins is effective in moving a racing shell in
> proportion to the pressure built up against the blades.

The pressure on the pins is always proportional to the pressure on the
blades. It can't be otherwise. (It is a simple matter of levers &
moments).

>
> For example, full pressure applied against the pins is most effective in
> moving a racing shell speedily forward when the blades are fully loaded.
> It is least effective when the blades are is just beginning the process
> of loading.

See my comment above. Pressure at pins can never not relate to that at
the blades.

> Herberger, et al. are right to consider the "thrust-stroke"
> (Schubschlag) superior to the "solid stroke with hard beginning"
> (Kernschlag) because with a thrust-stroke "the onward-speeding boat is
> accelerated rationally to the end of propulsion" and thus all of the
> sculler's effort goes into moving the boat. None of it is wasted in
> shoveling water.

Never swallow this guff about accelerating the boat. Particularly
eschew "accelerated rationally". It makes no sense, so it is irrational.

The stroke is all about doing work on the system a) to overcome the
unending fluid drag & then b) to increase the stored energy content of
the whole system (rower + boat) by the finish to a level above that at
the start of the stroke, such that it has sufficient energy reserve to
overcome the continuing fluid drag during the recovery.

The boat is by far the junior partner in the system. Attributing
importance to accelerating the boat is scarcely more meaningful, in this
context, than for a runner to talk of needing to accelerate her shoes.
In both cases the objects in question accelerate as & when they do
solely because they have to go along with the rest (= the far larger
part) of the system - i.e. you - as they are firmly attached to your feet

Cheers -
Carl

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

Paul,

Now that you mention it, I am not sure I understand the term "fully loaded."

Can a full load on a blade be measured in an absolute sense? Or can it only
be measured in a relative sense?

For example, if a stronger sculler can apply more pressure, then the blade
clearly has to support a greater effort. So while a blade may support my
effort, does this automatically guarantee that it will also support a
greater effort?

Also, at what part in the stroke is a blade considered "fully loaded?" And
what role does the depth of immersion play in loading a blade?

As for advancing the seat's being the goal of the drive, I confess I have
never thought of this. But it is an interesting idea.

My mind, however, is more mundane. In thinking about moving the boat I had
Bourne's simpler notion in mind, namely, "sticking the blade as firmly as
you can into a given spot in the water and lifting the boat as far and as
quickly as possible past that spot."

I take your point about "waiting around" for the oar handles to come to you.
But is this necessarily backwatering?

May I suggest that it could be a simple case of unclear writing on my part?
For example, think of a percussionist who is told to "wait for the beat." It
is not really the most accurate instruction to give him. Wouldn't a better
instruction be "come in on the beat?"

Similarly Gordon's instruction was wait for oar the handles to come to you,
or wait to push off until the oar handles come to you. Would it have been
more accurate for Gordon to have said, join the movement of the oar handles
as they come to you? Either way, I know Gordon does not mean wait to push
off until you start backwatering.

Also Gordon definitely wants zero backsplashing.

As for making a distinction between learning sculling for pleasure or for
speed, is there a difference? Are these really different things? Is good
blade work only important if you are sculling for speed?

Cordially,

Charles

"Charles Carroll" <charles_carroll@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:OdudndTCq6IA1E3VnZ2dnUVZ_hydnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Paul,
>
snip


>
> Also Gordon definitely wants zero backsplashing.

If the blade is dropping in the water, it splashes on both sides.

It can be avoided by rowing in.

>
> As for making a distinction between learning sculling for pleasure or for
> speed, is there a difference? Are these really different things? Is good
> blade work only important if you are sculling for speed?

It's a tradeoff, Charles. I've explained this before. Esoteric technical
efficiencies
do make a difference in boat speeds between people putting out equal
outputs of energy.

But the meat of the sport is not in the nuance of slight differences in
technique
that will garner a quarter length over 2k, it is the essence of the heart
and
soul to push one's self, to endure pain and self-doubt to go as hard as you
can. Often, making a boat go as fast as you can results in abandoning some
nuance here or there.

I believe that the make up of the human body/mind for outputing maximum
energy in
a mechanical rowing fashion does not directly translate to the most
efficient
rowing technique according to the designs of oar/boat, and the nature of
water.

Observing swimming confirms this.

When we see each other again sometime soon, let's get into the subject
mano a mano.

On Sep 17, 5:08 pm, "Mike Sullivan" <s...@slacSNIP.stanford.edu>
wrote:
> "Charles Carroll" <charles_carr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:OdudndTCq6IA1E3VnZ2dnUVZ_hydnZ2d@comcast.com...> Paul,
>
> snip
>
>
>
> > Also Gordon definitely wants zero backsplashing.
>
> If the blade is dropping in the water, it splashes on both sides.
>
> It can be avoided by rowing in.
>
>
>
> > As for making a distinction between learning sculling for pleasure or for
> > speed, is there a difference? Are these really different things? Is good
> > blade work only important if you are sculling for speed?
>
> It's a tradeoff, Charles.  I've explained this before.  Esoteric technical
> efficiencies
> do make a difference in boat speeds between people putting out equal
> outputs of energy.
>
> But the meat of the sport is not in the nuance of slight differences in
> technique
> that will garner a quarter length over 2k, it is the essence of the heart
> and
> soul to push one's self, to endure pain and self-doubt to go as hard as you
> can.  Often,  making a boat go as fast as you can results in abandoning some
> nuance here or there.
>
> I believe that the make up of the human body/mind  for outputing maximum
> energy in
> a mechanical rowing fashion does not directly translate to the most
> efficient
> rowing technique according to the designs of oar/boat, and the nature of
> water.
>
> Observing swimming confirms this.
>
> When we see each other again sometime soon,  let's get into the subject
> mano a mano.

Well... I've had the privilege of videotaping Olympic and World gold
medal winner Kathleen Heddle (and her partner Marnie) and 3 time world
champion Mahe Drysdale - in person - and I've also videotaped the
three (yes, all three) races between Drysdale and Waddell at the NZ
qualification trials, start to finish, on behalf of the selection
panel. As you can imagine, I'm constrained from making those race and
current training videos public.

They all made (or make) a "v" shaped splash when their blades
entered. With good resolution of the video, you can see the splash
made by the leading edge of the blade as it carves into the water, the
slight back splash, and the slight front splash. Complex to describe,
a wonder to see.
I rather suspect that if you're not making ANY splash, you're not
going very fast. Physics (of which I know little) requires that the
water get out of the way of the blade, and if you don't move the blade
into the water quickly enough to cause a little bit of water to fly
about, then you ain't going very fast. Where's that Sauvignon
Blanc...
W

On Sep 16, 2:49 pm, "Mike Sullivan" <s...@slacSNIP.stanford.edu>
wrote:
> <paul_v_sm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9fd5fb26-e1ad-4112-a4c5-27c78738312b@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 16, 10:13 am, "Charles Carroll" <charles_carr...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > Another question that could clarify the situation is:  Are you wanting
> > to learn sculling for pleasure, or speed?  Two very different things,
> > IMO.
>
> ah, you beat me to it.
>
> Here are Gordon's own words on the subject:http://www.cambridge-boat-club..org/Nutshell12.pdf

Yikes! 23 pages of "nutshell"!? There is a lot of good in there, but
sorting it out is no easy chore among the contradictions. No doubt
there has been a lot of thought in putting it together, but some
editorial collaboration is in order. I'm not even certain it could be
considered original work, as it seems to echo so many of the same
principles and phrasing that I have seen many times before.

Thanks for the reference. Perhaps a review of this document could be
a good common reference for a larger productive discussion on RSR.

If someone cares to explain how the blades can enter the water and be
pulled in the direction of travel without backsplash (yes, I know it's
really sidesplash), then the next step would be to figure out how to
hold that condition to simply maintain speed without "shifting the
force from the back to the face of the blade". I strive to keep the
back of the blade "fully loaded" personally, because once the main
resistance is coming from the face of the blade (concave) the water is
indeed being churned aggressively.

- Paul Smith

On Sep 16, 5:05 pm, "Charles Carroll" <charles_carr...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> Paul,
>
> Now that you mention it, I am not sure I understand the term "fully loaded."
>
> Can a full load on a blade be measured in an absolute sense? Or can it only
> be measured in a relative sense?
>
> For example, if a stronger sculler can apply more pressure, then the blade
> clearly has to support a greater effort. So while a blade may support my
> effort, does this automatically guarantee that it will also support a
> greater effort?
>
> Also, at what part in the stroke is a blade considered "fully loaded?" And
> what role does the depth of immersion play in loading a blade?

I think that it would always have to be relative, The blade will
always support the effort at the other end, but will it do so by
holding it's position or slip while doing so, and that is where depth
wil come into play. The less air we mix with the water, the better.

> As for advancing the seat's being the goal of the drive, I confess I have
> never thought of this. But it is an interesting idea.
>
> My mind, however, is more mundane. In thinking about moving the boat I had
> Bourne's simpler notion in mind, namely, "sticking the blade as firmly as
> you can into a given spot in the water and lifting the boat as far and as
> quickly as possible past that spot."

I could not agree more with that, nor have I found a better way to
express it.

> I take your point about "waiting around" for the oar handles to come to you.
> But is this necessarily backwatering?
>
> May I suggest that it could be a simple case of unclear writing on my part?
> For example, think of a percussionist who is told to "wait for the beat."It
> is not really the most accurate instruction to give him. Wouldn't a better
> instruction be "come in on the beat?"
>
> Similarly Gordon's instruction was wait for oar the handles to come to you,
> or wait to push off until the oar handles come to you. Would it have been
> more accurate for Gordon to have said, join the movement of the oar handles
> as they come to you? Either way, I know Gordon does not mean wait to push
> off until you start backwatering.

I did like his expression of the term "dead space", my wife was asking
me what I felt at the blade entry (frankly I hadn't ever thought about
the feel, only the timing), so I concentrated on it for a few strokes
only to conclude that I felt "nothing" in that brief instant where the
blade enters the water to full depth, even my hands were far more
relaxed about the handle than I would have thought. My thought on the
timing is that there must be a brief instant between the handles
moving sternward (WRT the boat) and moving bow-ward, and that is the
instant in which the blade must be placed to a depth that will support
the our best efforts to maximum benefit, allowing the system to
accelerate ASAP and for as long as possible. The magnitude of that
acceleration is the scale on which I would place sculling for pleasure
or speed, not really the necessity for good bladework or technique,
which we should always practice in the hopes that it will be sustained
when we do attempt to go faster.

- Paul Smith

> Also Gordon definitely wants zero backsplashing.

His instruction, to continue with pressure through the gate while
making the entry, makes that very difficult on his dutiful charges.
The water has to go somewhere when being invaded by a blade at
significant velocity, both forward and down. Walter can clear this up
(from his reality video), but my idealistic image is that the
backsplash comes off the bottom of the blade and the frontsplash would
come off the top.

> As for making a distinction between learning sculling for pleasure or for
> speed, is there a difference? Are these really different things? Is good
> blade work only important if you are sculling for speed?
>
> Cordially,
>
> Charles

paul_v_smith@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Sep 16, 5:05 pm, "Charles Carroll" <charles_carr...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> Also Gordon definitely wants zero backsplashing.
>
> His instruction, to continue with pressure through the gate while
> making the entry, makes that very difficult on his dutiful charges.
> The water has to go somewhere when being invaded by a blade at
> significant velocity, both forward and down. Walter can clear this up
> (from his reality video), but my idealistic image is that the
> backsplash comes off the bottom of the blade and the frontsplash would
> come off the top.
>

He says in the Nutshell document "The separation of the
handles up to and, actually, past the point of immersion of
the blade is absolutely critical". That is in complete disagreement with
the idea of getting no backsplash, and impossible anyway.

This goes back to that concept of the coach's description not being what
you are actually trying to get the athlete to do. From the point the
blades touch the water, the handles must start to move back the other
way, otherwise you are pushing against the boat movement. The blade is
always rowed in to some degree - what is important is how we minimise
the lost stroke length and time, without doing anything too detrimental
to our ability to work the stroke that follows.

Who is this Gordon dude anyway?

I have had the pleasure of being coached by Gordon and have read the
nutshell. I believe that Gordon believes (believed?) that when the
blades are placed at a good angle in a moving boat that lift forces
engage before any pressure is put on the handle (see the discussion in
#3 The Entry and comparison with swimming). I may have misinterpreted
Gordon, but after our coaching session last spring I posted that
question on RSR, where the expressed view was no force on the handle,
no lift.

If Gordon coached Charles to wait to feel the handles coming to him,
then that suggests that lift is not yet at work. That is certainly how
it felt to me when I was working with him. I don’t think this is
different from the advice that Carl and others give to allow more
flexibility in the arms and shoulder at the entry. (Gordon's advice
sounds more passive; Carl's more active. But in a moving, especially
fast moving, shell the action may be the same.)

I do know that when following Gordon’s advice of making a quick, clean
entry in the last moment of the recovery and a brief moment’s pause—in
his words, the length of a blink or snap—before applying power
improves my speed. The feeling of that pause is, however, quite
different at SR 18 and SR 32.

On Sep 17, 6:33 am, RoCo...@gmail.com wrote:
> Who is this Gordon dude anyway?

Who is John Galt? [;o)

The point is, he has encapsulated some interesting verbiage regarding
the execution of a rowing stroke that could be interesting to discuss.

Walter et al,

I have just gotten an email from Gordon. I clearly am mistaken in saying
that Gordon advocates "zero backsplashing." My apologies.

Gordon writes, "As far as blade splash goes, I think the "V" splash is best.
There must be some water movement caused by the displacement when the blade
enters."

What Gordon was correcting was my not getting the blades high enough off the
water on the recovery. As a consequence, as I would go to square the blades
for the entry, I would frequently produce an unnecessary backsplash.

Sorry for the inaccuracy.

Cordially,

Charles

Paul,

I do not know where my mind was yesterday afternoon when I replied to you.

Gordon's instructions were unmistakable. Gordon said "wait for oar the
handles to come to you," or "wait to push off until the oar handles come to
you," or "join the movement of the oar handles
as they come to you."

I can say this with such confidence because I had asked Liz to come out with
us and film. The DVD with 28 minutes of my lesson with Gordon is sitting in
a book case across the room. You can hear Gordon on this film give these
exact instructions.

Now, will Gordon's instructions result in backwatering?

I'll argue that they won't. It seems to me that this is easily demonstrable.
Next time you go sculling spend a few minutes backing up. Go slow at first,
keep a loose grip on the oar handles, don't push on them, just watch as the
handles start to move bowards.

Now tell me if you notice any disturbance in the momentum.

I don't.

And all you have to do next to go faster is join this movement and push. And
you will go faster. Of course you have to time the push. You can't, as you
say, put more effort into it than the blades will support.

All Gordon is saying is that the reverse is true for the drive.

Cordially,

Charles

On Sep 18, 1:33 am, RoCo...@gmail.com wrote:
> Who is this Gordon dude anyway?

Evidently this is he...
http://www.owrc.com/aLog2008/GordonHamilton-Sep08.pdf

Google searches - amazing things.
W

On Sep 18, 7:01 am, "Charles Carroll" <charles_carr...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> Walter et al,
>
> I have just gotten an email from Gordon. I clearly am mistaken in saying
> that Gordon advocates "zero backsplashing." My apologies.
>
> Gordon writes, "As far as blade splash goes, I think the "V" splash is best.
> There must be some water movement caused by the displacement when the blade
> enters."
>
> What Gordon was correcting was my not getting the blades high enough off the
> water on the recovery. As a consequence, as I would go to square the blades
> for the entry, I would frequently produce an unnecessary backsplash.
>
> Sorry for the inaccuracy.
>
> Cordially,
>
> Charles

Yup. If you let your blade skim or approach the surface and don't want
to dig when you square, you have to sky the blade to clear, square,
and catch.
If you keep the blade high enough, you can rotate the blade around the
centreline of the shaft to square it, and (depending on your choice of
terms) lift your hands, drop the blade, place the blade, flick it in,
execute the entry... and get to work on propelling yourself and the
boat past the blades.
W

wmartind@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sep 18, 1:33 am, RoCo...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Who is this Gordon dude anyway?
>
> Evidently this is he...
> http://www.owrc.com/aLog2008/GordonHamilton-Sep08.pdf
>
> Google searches - amazing things.
> W

quote, "Gordon has made big waves in the world of rowing, from coaching
the US National sweep and Sculling teams in ’84 and ’85..."

I thought Korzo was the sweep coach in '84?

-KC

On Sep 17, 2:44 pm, KC <kc_n...@sonic.net> wrote:
> wmart...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sep 18, 1:33 am, RoCo...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Who is this Gordon dude anyway?
>
> > Evidently this is he...
> >http://www.owrc.com/aLog2008/GordonHamilton-Sep08.pdf
>
> > Google searches - amazing things.
> > W
>
> quote, "Gordon has made big waves in the world of rowing, from coaching
> the US National sweep and Sculling teams in ’84 and ’85..."
>
> I thought Korzo was the sweep coach in '84?
>
> -KC

You think correctly!

Though there were likely a number of assistants.

- Paul Smith

"KC" <kc_news@sonic.net> wrote in message news:gartgh$sh1$1@gist.usc.edu...
> wmartind@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sep 18, 1:33 am, RoCo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Who is this Gordon dude anyway?
>>
>> Evidently this is he...
>> http://www.owrc.com/aLog2008/GordonHamilton-Sep08.pdf
>>
>> Google searches - amazing things.
>> W
>
> quote, "Gordon has made big waves in the world of rowing, from coaching
> the US National sweep and Sculling teams in ’84 and ’85..."
>
> I thought Korzo was the sweep coach in '84?

Women. I wasn't around then but ppl I coached were
in the thick of things, so I kept a distant eye on them.

Had a four one year, and a double another.

The double was a ltwt double at the worlds in 85, the four was like
the JV 4- (the US had double entries in events) for the
worlds at Oly year (the off Oly events).

I saw one of the names, my heart started pounding again...
sigh....

KC wrote:
> wmartind@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sep 18, 1:33 am, RoCo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Who is this Gordon dude anyway?
>>
>> Evidently this is he...
>> http://www.owrc.com/aLog2008/GordonHamilton-Sep08.pdf
>>
>> Google searches - amazing things.
>> W
>
> quote, "Gordon has made big waves in the world of rowing, from coaching
> the US National sweep and Sculling teams in ’84 and ’85..."
>
> I thought Korzo was the sweep coach in '84?
>
> -KC

He coached the women's 4- at the '84 worlds, and the women's 2x at the
'85 worlds. Korzo was the men's sweep coach at the '84 Olympics, and
Ernst was the women's sweep coach then.

http://www.rowinghistory.net/

-KC

<paul_v_smith@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c0c17efa-8e6e-4ee2-b9e1-d1c0e345cf27@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 17, 2:44 pm, KC <kc_n...@sonic.net> wrote:
> wmart...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sep 18, 1:33 am, RoCo...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Who is this Gordon dude anyway?

snip

> Though there were likely a number of assistants.

that's an understatement!!

What do you mean assistants? I had a pile of ppl I went to go visit
when the Oly team staged at Cal before going down to LA.

I went to say hi. What a mess. Nearly every crew that came
out of a camp that was supposed to be non-challengeable, ended
up getting challenged thru a series of lawsuits, typical faire for the
day. Thus, there were official coaches named by the USOC that
had cut guys from their camp, but their camp boat was history,
and the rowers who were cut came back with some coach from
a club or college and win the trials. there were dozens of coaches
milling around, but only a couple official ones.

No idea if they went to LA and got credentials, or snuck in, or what.

I was in Brazil by then.

On Sep 17, 2:44 pm, KC <kc_n...@sonic.net> wrote:
> wmart...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sep 18, 1:33 am, RoCo...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Who is this Gordon dude anyway?
>
> > Evidently this is he...
> >http://www.owrc.com/aLog2008/GordonHamilton-Sep08.pdf
>
> > Google searches - amazing things.
> > W
>
> quote, "Gordon has made big waves in the world of rowing, from coaching
> the US National sweep and Sculling teams in ’84 and ’85..."
>
> I thought Korzo was the sweep coach in '84?
>
> -KC


He charges a lot doesn't he? Good for him!

Carl,

If we are going to talk about the oar as a lever, let's be simple and limit
ourselves for the moment to either end, the handles and the blades.

Granted that the pressure on the handles can never not relate to pressure on
the blades. But is this the question? Or is the question how do they relate?

For example, if pressure applied to the oar handles exceeds the blades'
ability to support it, what happens? In your words, you produce an air
entrainment behind the blades, don't you? And do you want that air
entrainment behind the blades? In the past you have always warned against
it.

On the other hand, if the pressure applied to the oar handles is excessively
light, you don't get anywhere, do you?

Now, for the sake of argument, let's define the beginning of the stroke as
the duration between blade's entry and the blade's locking on. How does the
pressure applied to the oar handles during the beginning of the stroke
relate to the load building against the blades? Should pressure be applied
hard? Or should it be applied in measure? Should you use a hard beginning?
Or an easy beginning? In other words, is there an ideal way to apply
pressure to the oar handles at the beginning of the stroke?

As for the problem of acceleration, let's just to be simple about this look
at the oar handles again, specifically at blade entry.

At some time these handles are going to have to change direction, aren't
they? And when they do won't they for one tiny fragment of a second be at
rest? And if so, isn't it the job of the oarsman to incrementally add
pressure to them until he reaches as much pressure as he is capable of,
presumably this coincides with the blades locking on?

I don't know nearly as much about engineering as you do for sure, but I have
always been under the impression that this might count as a form of
acceleration. So my question is, if the oarsman preserves the proportion,
the ratio between pressure applied to the oar handles and load on the
blades, then why would it be wrong to say that the oar handles are
rationally accelerated?

I hope I am not making a complete fool of myself.

Cordially,

Charles

Charles Carroll wrote:
> Carl,
>
> If we are going to talk about the oar as a lever, let's be simple and
> limit ourselves for the moment to either end, the handles and the blades.
>
> Granted that the pressure on the handles can never not relate to
> pressure on the blades. But is this the question? Or is the question how
> do they relate?
>
> For example, if pressure applied to the oar handles exceeds the blades'
> ability to support it, what happens? In your words, you produce an air
> entrainment behind the blades, don't you? And do you want that air
> entrainment behind the blades? In the past you have always warned
> against it.
>
> On the other hand, if the pressure applied to the oar handles is
> excessively light, you don't get anywhere, do you?
>
> Now, for the sake of argument, let's define the beginning of the stroke
> as the duration between blade's entry and the blade's locking on. How
> does the pressure applied to the oar handles during the beginning of the
> stroke relate to the load building against the blades? Should pressure
> be applied hard? Or should it be applied in measure? Should you use a
> hard beginning? Or an easy beginning? In other words, is there an ideal
> way to apply pressure to the oar handles at the beginning of the stroke?
>
> As for the problem of acceleration, let's just to be simple about this
> look at the oar handles again, specifically at blade entry.
>
> At some time these handles are going to have to change direction, aren't
> they? And when they do won't they for one tiny fragment of a second be
> at rest? And if so, isn't it the job of the oarsman to incrementally add
> pressure to them until he reaches as much pressure as he is capable of,
> presumably this coincides with the blades locking on?
>
> I don't know nearly as much about engineering as you do for sure, but I
> have always been under the impression that this might count as a form of
> acceleration. So my question is, if the oarsman preserves the
> proportion, the ratio between pressure applied to the oar handles and
> load on the blades, then why would it be wrong to say that the oar
> handles are rationally accelerated?
>
> I hope I am not making a complete fool of myself.
>

Not at all, Charles.

Unless there are significant inertial effects within the lever arm,
which in this case is the oar, there is at all times a simple
relationship between the loads at blade, pin & handle.

It is important for our basic understanding here to separate the major
loadings from those arising from secondary & relatively trivial inertial
effects. Thus for the purpose of this discussion we may safely discount
oar inertia as a second-order effect (i.e. the loads resulting from
reversing the rotation of the oar about the pin, & from the boat's
accelerations & decelerations, are much less than those generated in
pulling it). So we may say as a sound approximation that the load on
the pin is always the direct sum of the loads on blade & handle.
Similarly we may say that:
handle load x pin-hand distance = blade load x pin-blade distance
&:
pin load = blade load + handle load
&:
handle load x blade-hand distance = pin load x blade-pin distance
(sure, we don't know exactly where the effective centre of load lies on
the blade, & we do know that this position varies throughout the stroke)

With an oar we must recognise its flexibility compared to the rigid
theoretical lever of a school maths lessons, but its flexibility doesn't
alter those basic "levers & moments" relationships. What it does do is
affect the rate at which you can build up the load, which takes us on to
Hooke's Law - deflection is proportional to load applied. That means
that the load you can apply is proportional the amount by which you can
flex the oar. And this involves us in energy storage - the energy
required to bend an oar is the sum of all the little progressive
elements of work done (= load x distance of flex) in bending the oar.

That last means that you may try to hit the water as hard (= fast) as
you wish, but thereafter will get only the load corresponding at any
moment to the degree of bending induced in the oar-loom. It also means
you must invest not only in directly-propulsive blade loadings
(proportional to oar flex) but also in work done to bend the oar - the
energy storage of which I spoke earlier. But still the basic lever &
moments relationship applies, regardless of flexure.

Ignoring human frailties & oar flexing, the best policy must be to get
load on as high & early as you can. Ignoring only human frailty, it is
how fast you can move your hands, alone, in those first few milliseconds
which determines how rapidly you bend the blade & thus how rapidly you
build the load onto blade, handle & pin. Reductio ad absurdam: if you
just drop the blades in & do nothing, they will rotate around the pin to
the finish position at a speed related to boat sped & arc angles, but
will carry no load, store no energy, the shaft will not flex, no work
will be done & the boat will not be propelled.

The trick with the catch is to get the load on quickly & efficiently, &
different counsels are heard in the land:
1. There are those who advocate taking the catch with the legs. This
has major inertial consequences: the body is much heavier than the boat,
& the body is also rather flexible, so if you drive with the legs the
first consequence is that the boat is driven (relatively) backwards, the
second is that the upper body does not immediately follow the pelvis
which delays the intended impulse to the handles, & the third is that
the pins are driven into the back of the (relatively) static oar-loom.
Only after all these irrelevant physical processes have taken place do
you even begin the (initially) light application of load to handle &
blade, but you have done a lot of hitherto unproductive work & delayed
the start of any stroke work.
2. And there are advocates of putting the cart _behind_ the horse ;)
By this I mean we recognise that every catch, even the hardest, must
needs start light but needs also as swift a build up of load as can be.
And we should recognise that the oar-loom is flexible, & the first
part of load build-up requires significant flexure. Do we move the
whole boat/body complex against each other to achieve this (a
sledge-hammer to crack a nut), or do we apply quick, progressive load
build-up through a rational (that word again!) progress of movements
which begin just with the fingers, hands & forearms, proceed swiftly
through the upper arms & shoulders, progress down the back & then from
the pelvis to the stretcher? In other words, do we jump up & down
holding the hammer rigidly, hitting the floor first & the nail last, or
relax & hit the nail by means of simple hand, arm & shoulder motions all
driving off the inherent inertia of our body mass?

Finally to this magic notion of "locking on". Unless you do something
daft, the blade is locked on from the moment it first enters the water
under some sort, however, slight, of load. Locking on is not a
recognisable physical process & has no fluid-dynamical significance. A
blade properly immersed in the water (not flapping around with bits
above the surface & air dragged in behind it) is always locked on.
There is nothing clever we can do to achieve this mystic state of "lock
on" & we do not have to wait for it to happen. Actually, the best
physical engagement of blade with water is at the moment of complete
immersion, with the blade entirely surrounded by hitherto unmoving,
un-flowing water with the transient inertial characteristics of solid rock.

Water, being fluid, finds sneaky ways to flow around anything which
tries to apply loads to it (or we'd have no science of fluid dynamics).
So from the instant after your blade is immersed the water is starting
to slide around it & thereby reduce the notional "lock" that you had
with that water. And that's the beauty of our other much argued but
absolutely real phenomenon - "lift". Provided you can have relative
motion through the water along the plane of your oarblade, you have the
possibility of generating fluid dynamic lift. As one consequence of
that relative motion, the blade acts in a constantly changing mass of
previously immobile water, which takes time to learn to move out of the
way, before which the blade is into the next bit of unsuspecting water.
And so on - until you approach mid-stroke where that process collapses
as the blade stays in the same lump of water too long & starts to tear
through it, creating that large pool of wasted energy called "the
puddle". But you already knew all that!

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)

Carl,

I just reread your post, for about the fourth time. I think it is elegant.
But these basic ideas about "levers & moments" are not part of my workaday
world, so I need to study more.

My first impression is that you and I are not far apart on what is happening
to the oars during the drive and what we need to do to work them well.

I was thinking about all this while eating breakfast and came up with a very
simple, basic rule for an easy beginning - Do not put more effort into
drawing back the oar handles than the blades can support. (I am indebted to
Paul for the phrase.)

Also, I realize that we are not talking about a great amount of time. As you
say, "the best policy is to get load on as high & early as you can."

By the way, perhaps it will interest you to hear that Gordon uses a high
speed video camera. He says it photographs at the rate of 30 frames per
second, and that he has never photographed anyone, including I would imagine
some of the world's most elite scullers, who can make an entry in less than
3 frames.

Cordially,

Charles

Charles Carroll wrote:
>
> I was thinking about all this while eating breakfast and came up with a
> very simple, basic rule for an easy beginning - Do not put more effort
> into drawing back the oar handles than the blades can support.

How do you know when you're exceeding the load the blades can support?
Air behind the blade?

> By the way, perhaps it will interest you to hear that Gordon uses a high
> speed video camera. He says it photographs at the rate of 30 frames per
> second,

That's not high-speed, that's normal speed. This is high-speed:

http://www.visionresearch.com/index.cfm?sector=htm/files&page=Phantom_v12

> and that he has never photographed anyone, including I would
> imagine some of the world's most elite scullers, who can make an entry
> in less than 3 frames.

0.1s is pretty quick, I think.

-Dave

On Sep 19, 6:02 am, Dave Sill <d...@sill.org> wrote:
> Charles Carroll wrote:
>
> > I was thinking about all this while eating breakfast and came up with a
> > very simple, basic rule for an easy beginning - Do not put more effort
> > into drawing back the oar handles than the blades can support.
>
> How do you know when you're exceeding the load the blades can support?
> Air behind the blade?
>
> > By the way, perhaps it will interest you to hear that Gordon uses a high
> > speed video camera. He says it photographs at the rate of 30 frames per
> > second,
>
> That's not high-speed, that's normal speed. This is high-speed:
>
> http://www.visionresearch.com/index.cfm?sector=htm/files&page=Phantom....
>
> > and that he has never photographed anyone, including I would
> > imagine some of the world's most elite scullers, who can make an entry
> > in less than 3 frames.
>
> 0.1s is pretty quick, I think.
>
> -Dave

Wow... that's one amazing camera...

You beat me to it. 30 frames/sec is NTSC refresh rate, which with
appropriate software can be broken into separate fields rendering
60Hz. (SiliconCoach is one such video software package). PAL video
shoots at a 25/sec frame rate, which can be taken to 50 Hz by (say)
SiliconCoach.

"High Speed" video is like the equipment used to resolve finish line
data to 0.001 second.
Back in the day, people used "LOCAM" 16 mm film cameras to film at up
to 500Hz. Went through a LOT of film, and showed just how much
people's muscles and skin flop around during motion...

0.1 second entry is, indeed, reasonably quick..
W

On Sep 18, 11:02 am, Dave Sill <d...@sill.org> wrote:
> Charles Carroll wrote:
>
> > I was thinking about all this while eating breakfast and came up with a
> > very simple, basic rule for an easy beginning - Do not put more effort
> > into drawing back the oar handles than the blades can support.
>
> How do you know when you're exceeding the load the blades can support?
> Air behind the blade?

That's probably a good indication of the idea that I am attempting to
get across with the statement. Though technically we can't really put
on more force than the blade will support (they must balance). The
idea is to make sure that the blade is put in a condition which allows
it to support a great deal of force, and not slip too much while doing
so (small dark puddle), allowing that force to do work for a longer
time than it would otherwise (high force for a short time, but a big
puddle).

- Paul Smith

Dave,

Am I reading this right? Does that camera really take "1,000,000
pictures-per-second?" Is that frames-per-second? Is that even possible?

In any event, I certainly stand corrected.

But holy cow! 1,000,000 pictures-per-second!

Cordially,

Charles

Oh, I forgot. Sorry. I would think that air entrainment behind the blades
would be an indication that you're exceeding the load the blades can
support?

Paul,

Maybe I haven't understood "levers & moments" so well.

Why do you say that "technically we can't really put on more force than the
blade will support?" I had supposed, until I read this, that putting on more
force than the blades could support might be the point at which the blades
slip fore to aft.

One other thing that I realized this morning is that the oarsman has a
relationship to the water through the oar. It sounds simple enough. Rather
obvious I would say. Except that I had never appreciated what a partnership
it really is.

Very interesting.

Cordially,

Charles

On Sep 18, 2:58 pm, "Charles Carroll" <charles_carr...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> Paul,
>
> Maybe I haven't understood "levers & moments" so well.
>
> Why do you say that "technically we can't really put on more force than the
> blade will support?" I had supposed, until I read this, that putting on more
> force than the blades could support might be the point at which the blades
> slip fore to aft.

That seems a fine way to say it, though the slip may not be fore to
aft, but rather in the direction perpendicular to the face of the
blade. It is most visible near the square off position because
hydrodynamic lift is minimal at that point, and the blade is stalled.
The nice part about that part of the stroke is that the energy stored
in the flexed shaft can be reclaimed if the oarsman is prudent and
patient (letting the blade hold position) rather than aggressive
(ripping the blade through the water). That is also the only way that
any lift will be reestablished prior to the finish.

> One other thing that I realized this morning is that the oarsman has a
> relationship to the water through the oar. It sounds simple enough. Rather
> obvious I would say. Except that I had never appreciated what a partnership
> it really is.
>
> Very interesting.
>
> Cordially,
>
> Charles

And as with many relationships, no matter how hard we push each other,
minimal disturbance is rewarded.

- Paul Smith

On Sep 19, 9:49 am, "Charles Carroll" <charles_carr...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> Dave,
>
> Am I reading this right? Does that camera really take "1,000,000
> pictures-per-second?" Is that frames-per-second? Is that even possible?
>
> In any event, I certainly stand corrected.
>
> But holy cow! 1,000,000 pictures-per-second!
>
> Cordially,
>
> Charles
>
> Oh, I forgot. Sorry. I would think that air entrainment behind the blades
> would be an indication that you're exceeding the load the blades can
> support?

Older technology for this sort of thing had the image "lensed" through
a spinning prism to a strip of film (don't ask me how, I've just heard
of it in something called a "hicam" - made by the folks who made the
Locam I mentioned earlier (A Locam was $18kUS in about 1988)) - it's
how they slowed down things like A-bomb blasts, or in pre-video days,
analysing how high speed manufacturing machinery was messing up.
That image in the video - a popcorn kernel opening up very slowly - is
REALLY neat...
W

wmartind@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sep 19, 9:49 am, "Charles Carroll" <charles_carr...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> Dave,
>>
>> Am I reading this right? Does that camera really take "1,000,000
>> pictures-per-second?" Is that frames-per-second? Is that even possible?
>>
>> In any event, I certainly stand corrected.
>>
>> But holy cow! 1,000,000 pictures-per-second!
>>
>> Cordially,
>>
>> Charles
>>
>> Oh, I forgot. Sorry. I would think that air entrainment behind the blades
>> would be an indication that you're exceeding the load the blades can
>> support?
>
> Older technology for this sort of thing had the image "lensed" through
> a spinning prism to a strip of film (don't ask me how, I've just heard
> of it in something called a "hicam" - made by the folks who made the
> Locam I mentioned earlier (A Locam was $18kUS in about 1988)) - it's
> how they slowed down things like A-bomb blasts, or in pre-video days,
> analysing how high speed manufacturing machinery was messing up.
> That image in the video - a popcorn kernel opening up very slowly - is
> REALLY neat...
> W

Walter,

There's now a 1200Hz camera available at a reasonable price:
The Casio Exilim Pro EX-F1, for as low as $675US. SRP ~ $1000.

This camera looks like a still digital camera, but it can also function
as a very impressive HD video camera (720p or 1080i @ 30fps / 60ifps).
But the most impressive feature is the high speed video settings:
300FPS at 512X384 pixels, 600FPS at 432X192 pixels, and 1200 FPS at
336X96 pixels.

The field of view is pretty small (low resolution) when using the
1200fps mode, but it's still useful.

We have one of these cameras in our lab now, and it's a lot of fun. The
300fps setting is quite useful, and pretty cheap for <$1000. We're
actually considering getting two more to capture some 3D kinematics at
300fps (we do a lot of jump-landing analysis - high frequency content
stuff.)

-KC

On Sep 18, 10:47 pm, kc <kc_n...@sonic.net> wrote:
> wmart...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sep 19, 9:49 am, "Charles Carroll" <charles_carr...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
> >> Dave,
>
> >> Am I reading this right? Does that camera really take "1,000,000
> >> pictures-per-second?" Is that frames-per-second? Is that even possible?
>
> >> In any event, I certainly stand corrected.
>
> >> But holy cow! 1,000,000 pictures-per-second!
>
> >> Cordially,
>
> >> Charles
>
> >> Oh, I forgot. Sorry. I would think that air entrainment behind the blades
> >> would be an indication that you're exceeding the load the blades can
> >> support?
>
> > Older technology for this sort of thing had the image "lensed" through
> > a spinning prism to a strip of film (don't ask me how, I've just heard
> > of it in something called a "hicam" - made by the folks who made the
> > Locam I mentioned earlier (A Locam was $18kUS in about 1988)) - it's
> > how they slowed down things like A-bomb blasts, or in pre-video days,
> > analysing how high speed manufacturing machinery was messing up.
> > That image in the video - a popcorn kernel opening up very slowly - is
> > REALLY neat...
> > W
>
> Walter,
>
> There's now a 1200Hz camera available at a reasonable price:
> The Casio Exilim Pro EX-F1, for as low as $675US.  SRP ~ $1000.
>
> This camera looks like a still digital camera, but it can also function
> as a very impressive HD video camera (720p or 1080i @ 30fps / 60ifps).
> But the most impressive feature is the high speed video settings:
> 300FPS at 512X384 pixels, 600FPS at 432X192 pixels, and 1200 FPS at
> 336X96 pixels.
>
> The field of view is pretty small (low resolution) when using the
> 1200fps mode, but it's still useful.
>
> We have one of these cameras in our lab now, and it's a lot of fun.  The
> 300fps setting is quite useful, and pretty cheap for <$1000.  We're
> actually considering getting two more to capture some 3D kinematics at
> 300fps (we do a lot of jump-landing analysis - high frequency content
> stuff.)
>
> -KC

That is very cool. What type of lighting requirement is there to get
good exposure at 300fps? Would daylight sunshine be enough?

- Paul Smith

Mike,

You write: “Esoteric technical efficiencies do make a difference in boat
speeds between people putting out equal outputs of energy. But the meat of
the sport is not in the nuance of slight differences in technique that will
garner a quarter length over 2k, it is the essence of the heart and soul to
push one's self, to endure pain and self-doubt to go as hard as you can.
Often making a boat go as fast as you can results in abandoning some nuance
here or there."

When I first read this I asked myself, can anything truer be said? And my
answer was, no, it can’t. This just matches my own experience, and the
experiences of everyone else I have ever talked to about rowing and sculling

Nevertheless I have a comment or two to add.

First comment: it seems to me that what we tend to forget on rsr in these
discussions is that good technique doesn’t just help you to win the race; it
also helps you to race the next race.

Consider the many discussions on technique that have occurred on rsr over
the years. Don’t these discussions almost always take place in the context
of “esoteric technical efficiencies … [making] a difference in boat speed?”

What I am trying to get at is how many discussions do we have in which
technique is placed in the context of reducing the risk of injuries? Very
few it seems to me. I think this is because we on rsr are always so
concerned, obsessed if you will, over what will make us faster. Yet it seems
to me that reducing the risk of injuries is every bit as valid reason for
coaching for good technique. It also seems to me that this is a point it
wouldn’t harm us occasionally to be reminded of.

The subtitle of my lesson with Gordon Hamilton is Argument for an Easy
Beginning. If you take the Catch and as Paul says, “put no more effort into
the beginning of it than the blades will support,” it seems to me that you
will find it a safer way to row.

Second comment: it seems to me that esoteric technical efficiencies in
technique do make a difference in boat speed. I realize that we are not in
disagreement over this. In fact it is exactly what you said. All I want is
to reemphasize it.

As Gordon called out corrections in technique during my lesson with him, I
found myself not only sculling better, but also getting faster and faster.

It seems to me that this is a significant point. In the past few months I
thought I was beginning to nail down technique. Wrong! This was entirely the
wrong thing to think, as the lesson with Gordon so clearly demonstrated.

Now that I have had opportunity to use a few of Gordon’s ideas on the water,
I am comfortable in saying that rowing with a little better technique has
shown me that I am probably rowing most of the time at something like
seventy percent of my potential. I am just astonished at how much faster I
can move a boat when I can sustain good technique for a few strokes. I am
also just as astonished at how much less effort is required.

Cordially,

Charles

Ps I am looking forward to getting together. Maybe, if the Club ever finds a
new General Manager, we can collect a few of Dan’s rowing friends for a
farewell dinner. Can you find the time to get up to the city in the
evenings?

Charles Carroll wrote:

>
> First comment: it seems to me that what we tend to forget on rsr in these
> discussions is that good technique doesn’t just help you to win the race;
> it also helps you to race the next race.
>
> Consider the many discussions on technique that have occurred on rsr over
> the years. Don’t these discussions almost always take place in the context
> of “esoteric technical efficiencies … [making] a difference in boat
> speed?�
>
> What I am trying to get at is how many discussions do we have in which
> technique is placed in the context of reducing the risk of injuries? Very
> few it seems to me. I think this is because we on rsr are always so
> concerned, obsessed if you will, over what will make us faster. Yet it
> seems to me that reducing the risk of injuries is every bit as valid
> reason for coaching for good technique. It also seems to me that this is a
> point it wouldn’t harm us occasionally to be reminded of.
>

Perhaps this is why so many Olympic medal winners have "poor technique" -
the graceful motion that is normally thought of as good technique because
it reduces the chance of injury is no longer necessary when the next
equally important race is in four years time.

Chris

Charles Carroll wrote:
> Carl,
>
> I just reread your post, for about the fourth time. I think it is
> elegant. But these basic ideas about "levers & moments" are not part of
> my workaday world, so I need to study more.
>
> My first impression is that you and I are not far apart on what is
> happening to the oars during the drive and what we need to do to work
> them well.
>
> I was thinking about all this while eating breakfast and came up with a
> very simple, basic rule for an easy beginning - Do not put more effort
> into drawing back the oar handles than the blades can support. (I am
> indebted to Paul for the phrase.)
>
> Also, I realize that we are not talking about a great amount of time. As
> you say, "the best policy is to get load on as high & early as you can."

I'd have been back sooner, Charles, but the news service from dear old
Demon Internet has screwed up on me just once too often. I'm here once
more thanks only to the expertise & patience of Henning & the
functionality of news.individual.net. Many thanks, Henning!

Always the awkward sod, me, so I may need differ slight with you over
your 3rd paragraph. Your blades, especially at the catch, will normally
take whatever load you can apply to them. Especially so since the rate
of load build-up is determined by your own speed of action & the fact
that you need to move the handle even to bend the oar, which is already
itself moving (albeit relatively slowly at the catch) around the pin.
Naturally this presumption breaks down when you fail to bury the blade,
instead taking a swipe at the water at some glancing angle to the
surface & thus scoop out a shallow hole.

>
> By the way, perhaps it will interest you to hear that Gordon uses a high
> speed video camera. He says it photographs at the rate of 30 frames per
> second, and that he has never photographed anyone, including I would
> imagine some of the world's most elite scullers, who can make an entry
> in less than 3 frames.

I can't take 30 photos in a second, even if my trigger finger trembles ;)

I would only remark that the best that people do right now should not
necessarily be the best that we want for the future. It may be all we
can ever get, or all we need to achieve but, since the stroke takes less
than 1 second from catch to finish, it does seem we might possibly
benefit from not taking ~10% of the stroke just getting the blade stuck in.

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)

Christopher Kerr wrote:
> Charles Carroll wrote:
>
>> First comment: it seems to me that what we tend to forget on rsr in these
>> discussions is that good technique doesn’t just help you to win the race;
>> it also helps you to race the next race.
>>
>> Consider the many discussions on technique that have occurred on rsr over
>> the years. Don’t these discussions almost always take place in the context
>> of “esoteric technical efficiencies … [making] a difference in boat
>> speed?�
>>
>> What I am trying to get at is how many discussions do we have in which
>> technique is placed in the context of reducing the risk of injuries? Very
>> few it seems to me. I think this is because we on rsr are always so
>> concerned, obsessed if you will, over what will make us faster. Yet it
>> seems to me that reducing the risk of injuries is every bit as valid
>> reason for coaching for good technique. It also seems to me that this is a
>> point it wouldn’t harm us occasionally to be reminded of.
>>
>
> Perhaps this is why so many Olympic medal winners have "poor technique" -
> the graceful motion that is normally thought of as good technique because
> it reduces the chance of injury is no longer necessary when the next
> equally important race is in four years time.
>
> Chris

There's endless argument over what constitutes allegedly "poor"
technique, as when Rob Waddell was castigated by armchair experts for
winning gold in 2000 while "digging too deep". I feel sure there are
those who'd have had him penalised for not looking sufficiently pretty.

While many fast boat movers do look to be rowing with great elegance, it
might be worth trying to understand what, apart from their being near
superhuman, the champions do that others don't, & what in that process
helps them to get that bit more out of their interactions with the water.

That takes real insight, which is a far cry from the slavish imitation
of style without understanding of content - the easy but daft option.

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 19, 10:48 am, "Charles Carroll" <charles_carr...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> Mike,
>
> You write: “Esoteric technical efficiencies do make a difference in boat
> speeds between people putting out equal outputs of energy. But the meat of
> the sport is not in the nuance of slight differences in technique that will
> garner a quarter length over 2k, it is the essence of the heart and soul to
> push one's self, to endure pain and self-doubt to go as hard as you can.
> Often making a boat go as fast as you can results in abandoning some nuance
> here or there."
>
> When I first read this I asked myself, can anything truer be said? And my
> answer was, no, it can’t. This just matches my own experience, and the
> experiences of everyone else I have ever talked to about rowing and sculling
>
> Nevertheless I have a comment or two to add.
>
> First comment: it seems to me that what we tend to forget on rsr in these
> discussions is that good technique doesn’t just help you to win the race; it
> also helps you to race the next race.
>
> Consider the many discussions on technique that have occurred on rsr over
> the years. Don’t these discussions almost always take place in the context
> of “esoteric technical efficiencies … [making] a difference in boat speed?”
>
> What I am trying to get at is how many discussions do we have in which
> technique is placed in the context of reducing the risk of injuries? Very
> few it seems to me. I think this is because we on rsr are always so
> concerned, obsessed if you will, over what will make us faster. Yet it seems
> to me that reducing the risk of injuries is every bit as valid reason for
> coaching for good technique. It also seems to me that this is a point it
> wouldn’t harm us occasionally to be reminded of.
>
> The subtitle of my lesson with Gordon Hamilton is Argument for an Easy
> Beginning. If you take the Catch and as Paul says, “put no more effort into
> the beginning of it than the blades will support,” it seems to me that you
> will find it a safer way to row.
>
> Second comment: it seems to me that esoteric technical efficiencies in
> technique do make a difference in boat speed. I realize that we are not in
> disagreement over this. In fact it is exactly what you said. All I want is
> to reemphasize it.
>
> As Gordon called out corrections in technique during my lesson with him, I
> found myself not only sculling better, but also getting faster and faster..

Here, then, is a rub. In past discussions about the technique and
going fast I've repeated myself ad nauseum about MHO about the
yin/yang of how one focuses one's efforts technique, power, when,
how often, etc. I won't repeat here.

I will offer something new though!

Take 10 coaches with a dozen different styles they teach in rowing.
(yes some coaches get confused! :^)

Apply a dozen scullers to each coach. In every coaching situation,
with every style taught, everything from what many might think to be
nonsense, to what might be considered sound, at least some of the
dozen athletes will report as you did - yes - my boat DID move better
for each coach, no matter what they teach as long as coach is sincere,
and has achieved some manner of authority by basis of personality or
reputation.

This is true in other sports as well.

As a teacher, I have gotten frustrated some times when some one
I teach doesn't report back that "yes, the boat did feel better". I
think, "you boob, what's wrong with you, don't you know you just
got handed the word of a coaching god?"

Later, upon reflection I started to appreciate that more, as well as
not trust 100% that someone is telling me, "yes, that feels a lot
better".




>
> It seems to me that this is a significant point. In the past few months I
> thought I was beginning to nail down technique. Wrong! This was entirely the
> wrong thing to think, as the lesson with Gordon so clearly demonstrated.
>
> Now that I have had opportunity to use a few of Gordon’s ideas on the water,
> I am comfortable in saying that rowing with a little better technique has
> shown me that I am probably rowing most of the time at something like
> seventy percent of my potential. I am just astonished at how much faster I
> can move a boat when I can sustain good technique for a few strokes. I am
> also just as astonished at how much less effort is required.

Without seeing you, you probably are rowing a lot better.


> Ps I am looking forward to getting together. Maybe, if the Club ever finds a
> new General Manager, we can collect a few of Dan’s rowing friends for a
> farewell dinner. Can you find the time to get up to the city in the
> evenings?

Yes, keep me posted. I haven't spoken to Dan, will see what's up.

(writing from the lake)
Stole a OWRC lady from you guys. She came down to scull a couple
times off your beautiful dock, from your beautiful boathouse, in your
brand new aeros. she was here this morning, slogged in a 20 year old
boat I rebuilt using spare cigar box parts and duct tape, that we had
to clean out the wasp nest first. cleaned up her rowing a lot by
fixing her hands, taught her how to back properly, she was cruising
and having a great time. Swim test tomorrow.

she's nervous.

On Sep 19, 5:47 pm, kc <kc_n...@sonic.net> wrote:
> wmart...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sep 19, 9:49 am, "Charles Carroll" <charles_carr...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
> >> Dave,
>
> >> Am I reading this right? Does that camera really take "1,000,000
> >> pictures-per-second?" Is that frames-per-second? Is that even possible?
>
> >> In any event, I certainly stand corrected.
>
> >> But holy cow! 1,000,000 pictures-per-second!
>
> >> Cordially,
>
> >> Charles
>
> >> Oh, I forgot. Sorry. I would think that air entrainment behind the blades
> >> would be an indication that you're exceeding the load the blades can
> >> support?
>
> > Older technology for this sort of thing had the image "lensed" through
> > a spinning prism to a strip of film (don't ask me how, I've just heard
> > of it in something called a "hicam" - made by the folks who made the
> > Locam I mentioned earlier (A Locam was $18kUS in about 1988)) - it's
> > how they slowed down things like A-bomb blasts, or in pre-video days,
> > analysing how high speed manufacturing machinery was messing up.
> > That image in the video - a popcorn kernel opening up very slowly - is
> > REALLY neat...
> > W
>
> Walter,
>
> There's now a 1200Hz camera available at a reasonable price:
> The Casio Exilim Pro EX-F1, for as low as $675US.  SRP ~ $1000.
>
> This camera looks like a still digital camera, but it can also function
> as a very impressive HD video camera (720p or 1080i @ 30fps / 60ifps).
> But the most impressive feature is the high speed video settings:
> 300FPS at 512X384 pixels, 600FPS at 432X192 pixels, and 1200 FPS at
> 336X96 pixels.
>
> The field of view is pretty small (low resolution) when using the
> 1200fps mode, but it's still useful.
>
> We have one of these cameras in our lab now, and it's a lot of fun.  The
> 300fps setting is quite useful, and pretty cheap for <$1000.  We're
> actually considering getting two more to capture some 3D kinematics at
> 300fps (we do a lot of jump-landing analysis - high frequency content
> stuff.)
>
> -KC

Hi KC. Didn't see this before - been only skimming or not looking.
Sounds like an interesting lab camera - If I were in the market for
one that would be a good potential way to go. Most rowing stuff can
be discerned at relatively standard frame rates, though.

Last year Volker was here working with Uwe Kersting at Auckland U of
Technology. They mounted 3 cameras on the TV barge, calibrated a
space about 3 m by 2.5 by 2.5 beside the barge, and filmed Mahe and a
few others sculling and rowing in the calibrated space. Then the
gradual students digitized it and fed it into the 3Dkinematics
software. The results were VERY cool, but they didn't have any (lab
quality) measure of velocity of either the camera or the rowers, so
they only have kinematics "within" the movements but not in real
velocities. Oh well. I'd asked if they'd send some of the data to me
but it never managed to get here. Uwe is back in Europe...

Paul... I suspect that daylight on a light overcast would be best - no
shadows. Still LOTS of light.
W

On Sep 17, 6:38 pm, RoCo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> Who is this Gordon dude anyway?

Well, among other things... Gordon is the sculling coach at Cambridge
Boat Club in Boston.

(Sully - you need to get some help with those 1984 issues!!! BTW, was
just in New Milford for the GMS 10K Sculling Challenge. Found a 2-
star hotel on Rt 7 you need to add to your rowing travel guide) :)

Back to the thread - re: timing of pressure application, one of the
Beijing US sculling coaches (whose athlete did pretty well) would tell
you to watch the stern post. It will bob down as you transfer body
weight into the stern & plant the blade, & then rebound (bob up).
Anticipate the rebound & then quickly apply pressure with the legs.
This gives you that split-second delay you're looking for.

"Greg Benning" <gregbenning@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d66970f4-1545-49bc-8716-21e3f0a7e43d@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 17, 6:38 pm, RoCo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> Who is this Gordon dude anyway?

> Well, among other things... Gordon is the sculling coach at Cambridge
> Boat Club in Boston.

> (Sully - you need to get some help with those 1984 issues!!! BTW, was
> just in New Milford for the GMS 10K Sculling Challenge. Found a 2-
> star hotel on Rt 7 you need to add to your rowing travel guide) :)

Hidy, Greg - welcome back!! I had no prob with '84 issues,
I'd completely backed out of rowing - decided to take a year
away. The folks I'd coached told me all about it, and most of
them benefitted from the madness, at least as far as scratching,
scraping onto the Oly team.

was that 2- or 2+ ?

You realize that to make my guide it has to have a good dive bar
within walking distance.

One of these days I'll dig back into my rowing logs and look at that
1983 pre-elite team. Bad memory, great bunch of oarsmen, though.

paul_v_smith@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Sep 18, 10:47 pm, kc <kc_n...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> wmart...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sep 19, 9:49 am, "Charles Carroll" <charles_carr...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Dave,
>>>> Am I reading this right? Does that camera really take "1,000,000
>>>> pictures-per-second?" Is that frames-per-second? Is that even possible?
>>>> In any event, I certainly stand corrected.
>>>> But holy cow! 1,000,000 pictures-per-second!
>>>> Cordially,
>>>> Charles
>>>> Oh, I forgot. Sorry. I would think that air entrainment behind the blades
>>>> would be an indication that you're exceeding the load the blades can
>>>> support?
>>> Older technology for this sort of thing had the image "lensed" through
>>> a spinning prism to a strip of film (don't ask me how, I've just heard
>>> of it in something called a "hicam" - made by the folks who made the
>>> Locam I mentioned earlier (A Locam was $18kUS in about 1988)) - it's
>>> how they slowed down things like A-bomb blasts, or in pre-video days,
>>> analysing how high speed manufacturing machinery was messing up.
>>> That image in the video - a popcorn kernel opening up very slowly - is
>>> REALLY neat...
>>> W
>> Walter,
>>
>> There's now a 1200Hz camera available at a reasonable price:
>> The Casio Exilim Pro EX-F1, for as low as $675US. SRP ~ $1000.
>>
>> This camera looks like a still digital camera, but it can also function
>> as a very impressive HD video camera (720p or 1080i @ 30fps / 60ifps).
>> But the most impressive feature is the high speed video settings:
>> 300FPS at 512X384 pixels, 600FPS at 432X192 pixels, and 1200 FPS at
>> 336X96 pixels.
>>
>> The field of view is pretty small (low resolution) when using the
>> 1200fps mode, but it's still useful.
>>
>> We have one of these cameras in our lab now, and it's a lot of fun. The
>> 300fps setting is quite useful, and pretty cheap for <$1000. We're
>> actually considering getting two more to capture some 3D kinematics at
>> 300fps (we do a lot of jump-landing analysis - high frequency content
>> stuff.)
>>
>> -KC
>
> That is very cool. What type of lighting requirement is there to get
> good exposure at 300fps? Would daylight sunshine be enough?
>
> - Paul Smith

Daylight is enough at 1200Hz, let alone at 300Hz. At 300Hz, you can
record indoors so long as the lights are bright and incandescent or
halogen... Fluorescent tend not to work as well, although you can still
record stuff, it's pretty poor quality.

But anything in descent daylight is excellent.

-KC

wmartind@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sep 19, 5:47 pm, kc <kc_n...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> wmart...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sep 19, 9:49 am, "Charles Carroll" <charles_carr...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Dave,
>>>> Am I reading this right? Does that camera really take "1,000,000
>>>> pictures-per-second?" Is that frames-per-second? Is that even possible?
>>>> In any event, I certainly stand corrected.
>>>> But holy cow! 1,000,000 pictures-per-second!
>>>> Cordially,
>>>> Charles
>>>> Oh, I forgot. Sorry. I would think that air entrainment behind the blades
>>>> would be an indication that you're exceeding the load the blades can
>>>> support?
>>> Older technology for this sort of thing had the image "lensed" through
>>> a spinning prism to a strip of film (don't ask me how, I've just heard
>>> of it in something called a "hicam" - made by the folks who made the
>>> Locam I mentioned earlier (A Locam was $18kUS in about 1988)) - it's
>>> how they slowed down things like A-bomb blasts, or in pre-video days,
>>> analysing how high speed manufacturing machinery was messing up.
>>> That image in the video - a popcorn kernel opening up very slowly - is
>>> REALLY neat...
>>> W
>> Walter,
>>
>> There's now a 1200Hz camera available at a reasonable price:
>> The Casio Exilim Pro EX-F1, for as low as $675US. SRP ~ $1000.
>>
>> This camera looks like a still digital camera, but it can also function
>> as a very impressive HD video camera (720p or 1080i @ 30fps / 60ifps).
>> But the most impressive feature is the high speed video settings:
>> 300FPS at 512X384 pixels, 600FPS at 432X192 pixels, and 1200 FPS at
>> 336X96 pixels.
>>
>> The field of view is pretty small (low resolution) when using the
>> 1200fps mode, but it's still useful.
>>
>> We have one of these cameras in our lab now, and it's a lot of fun. The
>> 300fps setting is quite useful, and pretty cheap for <$1000. We're
>> actually considering getting two more to capture some 3D kinematics at
>> 300fps (we do a lot of jump-landing analysis - high frequency content
>> stuff.)
>>
>> -KC
>
> Hi KC. Didn't see this before - been only skimming or not looking.
> Sounds like an interesting lab camera - If I were in the market for
> one that would be a good potential way to go. Most rowing stuff can
> be discerned at relatively standard frame rates, though.
>
> Last year Volker was here working with Uwe Kersting at Auckland U of
> Technology. They mounted 3 cameras on the TV barge, calibrated a
> space about 3 m by 2.5 by 2.5 beside the barge, and filmed Mahe and a

Not sure I follow... how in the world did they calibrate a space seen by
cameras on a floating (and apparently moving?) barge?

> few others sculling and rowing in the calibrated space. Then the
> gradual students digitized it and fed it into the 3Dkinematics

LOL... gradual students... I'd not heard that one before. Nice. Did
they use retro reflective markers, or just digitize joint centers by
eye? Just curious.

> software. The results were VERY cool, but they didn't have any (lab
> quality) measure of velocity of either the camera or the rowers, so

They should have put some buoys in the water at regular intervals (say 1
or 2m apart) and digitized those as well as the rowers. Then they'd
have a velocity reference of some sort.

> they only have kinematics "within" the movements but not in real
> velocities. Oh well. I'd asked if they'd send some of the data to me
> but it never managed to get here. Uwe is back in Europe...

Pretty cool.

>
> Paul... I suspect that daylight on a light overcast would be best - no
> shadows. Still LOTS of light.

We did some soccer kicks at 1200 and 300 Hz outdoors in direct sunlight
(it was actually pretty hot). Great quality video at both rates.

-KC

Chris,

It occurs to me that I inadvertently may have begged the important question,
namely, what is good technique?

Another way of asking this might be is technique that looks elegant and
graceful necessarily effective technique? By “effective� I mean keeping a
racing level, moving it straight, and moving it fast.

So when I ask what good technique is, I do not mean to ask what the most
graceful and elegant and polished method for moving a racing shell is. On
the contrary, what interests me is the most effective technique. Fairbairn
often cites examples of crews that have been praised for the elegance of
their technique but routinely lose races. Their technique, for however
polished it may look, is ineffectual.

In his lesson with me Gordon tried to make me a more effective sculler. He
did this through a series of steps.

At the release Gordon asked me to push to the end of the release with the
legs, let the arms follow, raise myself higher, keep the elbows out instead
of drawn past the trunk, keep the weight over the oar handles, keep the
elbows higher than the hands, help the blades release with a very, very
slight tap down with the forearms, use the thumbs to apply generous lateral
pressure, then stretch out the lats, flex, and anchor them down with the
shoulders. The aim was to have a very quick, clean release with a small
puddle, to get the blades off the water, and, in Gordon’s words, to become
“a fortress of stability.�