News

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

I found this interview with Martin McElroy taken just after the GB 8 that he coached with Harry Mahon won gold at Sydney.

This is an extract in which he discusses testing equipment. 

As an engineer by training I never take the status quo for granted. In the past crews mainly used empacher boats and concept oars. Was this because they were the best or because everybody was scared to do anything different? I didn't know the answer to that question or even if it was the right question. What I did know was that I'd like to test the hypothesis. It also concerned me that athletes got so hung up about equipment. Very few, if any, crews are constrained by their equipment. The differences due to equipment are so small compared to the impact of how a crew rows or how fit they are. Of course if there's any potential for advantage from equipment then I'd rather have it than not…

So, in the right context I set out to see what I could find with regards to equipment. Boats tend to be evolutions of something earlier. Things get lost in the mists of time. Why is it a particular shape? Just because something else was or because some serious research has been done. If research has been done, then what tools and methodologies were used. Are they correct and up to date? When you start to ask these questions there aren't many who can answer through progressive levels of questions. With regard to boats, Vespoli can answer quite a few questions. Carl Scragg, the naval architect has taken a good look at boats. Overall, I'd be more inclined to go with this than with data that originated in the former GDR. Things have changed a lot since then. Much more powerful computational tools are available…

I've done practical testing before and found the results questionable. Quite often the faster boat is the more uncomfortable. But does there come a point where being uncomfortable inhibits the athlete? As it happens the Vespoli is very comfortable but then most heavyweight boats are. With regard to oars, we used concept smoothies in '97 and then Croker slicks after that. Although I like the idea of adjustable handles, I found the early concept version required a lot of maintenance. I spent two days at the world championships in '97 changing inserts and grips. I didn't think that was the most productive use of my time. The more we used the Crokers the more we liked them. They sat very positively in the water right from the entry. I'm not fixed in my views about oars. Athletes adapt to oar types just as they do to rigging within reason…

A winning athlete doesn't leave anything to chance…. test, select and keep an open mind.

Bookmark to:

We now have new stock of Stampfli Grips.

And the price has dropped to £12 per pair. 

Buy yours here 

Bookmark to:

There is an extremely good discussion on RSR about the natural buoyancy of oars and sculls and how deep they should be in the water during the power phase.

Paul Smith kicks off with

I've been having to fight my rowers on this the whole season, as they have been well ingrained in the "floating level", "30cm of shaft", etc… mantras that they have heard, and exaggerated dutifully to create great washy puddles that send a lot of water backward while not advancing the boat much.  

Carl Douglas' view is that there are some limitations that are just for beginners

And that was exactly the point I'd hoped to make, Caroline.  Novices need limits which more experienced folk should dispense with. 

Kit makes a good point about why going deep may affect novices

 1. Going deeper than the naturally buoyant level of the blade requires the rower to hold the blade deep during the stroke, adding the lifting effort from the shoulders to all the pulling effort they are already exerting. For fit athletes this may not be an issue (though even then it may), but for the inexperienced, I believe they will relax more then purely focusing their physical efforts on drawing the blade. In this case, ideally the naturally buoyant level of the blade should be deep enough (as already discussed).

2. If the draw of the blade includes a vertical component during the drive (as opposed to just at the catch and finish), I believe this will add to the vertical forces on the gates affecting balance. During the drive this may not have a great effect, but it will be very difficult for novices to keep these forces balanced between both sides of the boat towards the finish, where imbalance has worse consequences for the recovery. Again, an experienced crew may be able to feel the forces an adjust for any imbalance (though even then they may not).

I think my preference is for as little effort as possible for holding the blade at the correct height, and that blades should preferably float to the required depth when square. I'm sure it would be possible to attach small weights to the looms to achieve this.

And Paul Smith makes the observation about the dfference between Dreher and C2 oars and sculls.  [I have obswerved this myself many times but few others seem to have noticed].

I've not seen a Dreher Sweep oar, the "floating level" might be about right for their Sculls, but it is far deeper than any C2 blade will float.  I suspect that the Dreher blades, if not attached to a shaft would actually sink (even when feathered there is no part of the blade above the surface if they are left to their own buoyancy), whereas the C2's float very well.

Which brings us back to Kit's observation - that any effort spent holding an oar into the water at the 'correct' depth, is effort that could be translated into power to move the boat.  And so in my view, an oar or scull that sits at the correct depth naturally and doesn't require effort to hold it covered with water during the power phase, is an asset to the crew who can expend their power on other things (like working harder) instead.

[We have asked Jim Dreher to comment on this].

Bookmark to:

James Chapman of Maidstone Invicta RC , just wrote to us with this "classic" anecdote from the Tideway Head of the River Race

Thanks for getting us the replacement MK1 gate in time for the HORR although the Post Office tried to impound it! The gates are still working well.

During HORR, we clashed with Keble just after Hammersmith Bridge causing my blade to bury deep, gate popped open saving blade, boat, rigger and me from any damage enabling me to put the oar back in quickly and continue the race… with a conventional gate I would probably had a broken rib or a swim, the rigger would have been broken and the crew would have limped home! So although a shock at the time, a good result in the end!

Just have to remember our coaches mantra of a firm outside hand! 

Bookmark to:

The new Magik Oarlock "Evolution" has just been released by the manufacturers.

Based on the successful MK1 design, the new oarlock incorporates some great new features which have been added as a result of user feedback.  If you gave us your comments and views, thank you very much.  Everything you said was passed back to the design team and we hope you'll agree that the new Magik Oarlock looks great!

The photo shows the rowing (sweep) oarlock on the left and the sculling one on the right.

Design improvements: 

• Yellow sliding lock mechanism visible from top of oarlock so you can see when it is fully engaged
• Pivot (bottom yellow circle) redesigned to raise the level of pivot avoiding chafing against wing rigger mountings
• Tensioning elastic band shortened to avoid chafing against wing riggers

We are looking for volunteers to test out both the sculling and rowing Magik Evolution oarlocks.  If you are interested, or want your coach to see them, please email and give us your name, club and postal address.  This offer is based on the expectation that if you test for us, you write a review for our website shop page.

MK1 Evolution lock mechanism close up and the pivot mechanism close up. 

Bookmark to: