Fat2

[Stelph]

As I don't have my Fat2 available this week, I first rowed the 1x with C2 Smoothie2 regular rig, then the Crokers with regular rig, both felt short, heavy and my back hurt. This morning I did 9 miles with Crokers in the following rig:

oarlength 283cm
inboard 85.5cm
spread 156.5cm

it felt almost as good as with the even shorter Fats and was significantly faster at less power output than regular rig... now that rig anyone can try... interested to see what Doyle comes up with re: hooks.

Digging up a very old thread here but wondering if there was any more feedback on rigging crokers shorter? Ive seen lots of information on short Fat2's (Sounds like 272/86/157 was Swiss's sweetspot) but was interested in this suggestion of how to rig crokers to get a similar benefit since its going to involve hacking up the crokers to get the blades this short and am wondering if its worth it or whether to just switch to fats

[132K]

Crokers typically won't respond well to very steep catch angles since they have more hook in the blade and will stall at entry - Fat2's were meant to work in that environment, much flatter with vortex tips. Leave the hacksaw in the box.

[platypus]

It was a beautiful summer's morning on the Yarra today, so when I went for a scull in my Fluid, I borrowed my friends C2 Fat2s with skinny shafts. I've always been a Croker man, through and through, so I went in as sceptical as can be, expecting a dog of a row. I made no adjustments to the oars or rigg prior to the row. It was a spread of 157cm, C2 Fat2 oar length 282cm with 88cm inboard.

Wow !!! Are these things oars on Roids or what?

During the warm up my stroke coach was telling me that I was going at the usual same speed as with my Croker arrows. But then, I was sculling very conservatively getting use to the oars. However, I was very comfortable with them. As I've read so many horror stories about these oars and how difficult it is rigging them for optimum speed, I was holding back waiting for my body to protest or the boat to loose its run. But I was still sculling well within myself with plenty to give. So I upped the ant. Put the pressure on these blades and Wow !!! the Fluid picks up and goes. Impeller stroach coaches don't lie (only GPS ones do). I was going much faster than for the same effort with my Croker arrows. And I could maintain that pressure for longer than with my arrows. Where have these oars been all my life. Did I fluke it with the ideal rigg for these oars or where they simply more suitable for my rowing style. It's probably a combination of both.

With the short rigg, I reckon Fat2s are more suited to a steeper angle to the blade at the catch in the water than Croker arrows. That's one reason I was more comfortable and faster. The other is; that I'm a guy that loves a big powerful finish. The Crokers feel more direct at the catch, but tend to let go of the water far sooner than the Fats2s. So for my big powerful finish, the Fat2s suit my style far more than the arrows. Therefore I was rowing more efficiently with the Fat2s. Although I always felt comfortable, you really need to get the power on to take full advantage of these oars. Definetly not suitable for lightweight women or ageing masters rowers. I'm surprised that more elite heavyweight men and women don't use these oars. Maybe it's the rigging factor and I just fluked the ideal rigg.

I'm 6ft 2in, weigh 84kg with good lean muscle weight with minimum body fat and good aerobic capacity. I reckon these oars suit me to the tee and could be placing an order soon. Just a few more rows with them to make sure my first row wasn't a dream.

[rowing]

What was your rig for both? What sort of workout and rates?

My experience has been the Fat is the ultimate steady state blade, almost bizarrely tuned to the perfect low to moderate practice rate. However it does not scale to true race pace and as you increase the intensity the 'mad gainz' drop off and favor a traditional design again.

I believe this has been the marketing push behind the new Comp blade, trying to split the difference. That and no one of much international renown was choosing the Fat. C2 can only bark about 'efficiency' for so long before it becomes awkwardly obvious none of their sponsored athletes or teams is listening to them.

[platypus]

What was your rig for both? What sort of workout and rates?

My previous rig with Croker Arrows was: Spread 157cm, Inboard 87cm Outboard 197 cm
I rowed with Fat2s again this morning. About 13km rating between 28 and 31 spm, mostly up tempo steady state, but no race pieces. I noticed this morning that the shorter Fat2 oars give me more height (clearance of the water without any adjustment of the spacers under the oarlock gates). They also allowed me to sit up more in a stronger position at ther catch. All good things that these oars bring. But I haven't raced with them, therefore can't argue, for or against, improved performance at race pace.

[rowing]

What was your rig for both? What sort of workout and rates?

My previous rig with Croker Arrows was: Spread 157cm, Inboard 87cm Outboard 197 cm
I rowed with Fat2s again this morning. About 13km rating between 28 and 31 spm, mostly up tempo steady state, but no race pieces. I noticed this morning that the shorter Fat2 oars give me more height (clearance of the water without any adjustment of the spacers under the oarlock gates). They also allowed me to sit up more in a stronger position at ther catch. All good things that these oars bring. But I haven't raced with them, therefore can't argue, for or against, improved performance at race pace.

284 total length for a traditional blade seems a little wispy, regardless of the 157 spread. No wonder you didn't feel any finish. You never had a catch. Rigging one set of oars like crap does not make for a valid test setting whereby you can definitively assess another set of oars.

If you are going to keep the spread at 157 (a fair bit tighter than most other scullers at 6'2" height) and you found something exciting with the Fat at 282, then a more likely comparison for Arrow or Smoothie type blade might be a 287 to 289 length. That would be closer to C2 advice on the rigging differences between the blade classes. If you are genuinely trying to compare rigs, it would be dubious to exalt them in one breath and ignore them in another.

[KiwiCanuck]

Kleshnev's most recent newsletter is a comparison between Fat2, Comp, and Smoothie2 with a single subject sculler.
Single sujbect, multiple trials isn't really a good way to assess this - maybe 10 or 15 subjects doing similar sessions with measurements taken wouuld be better but:
The data cited shows - Fat2 is most efficient, whatever that means, and - boat speed (which I'd suggest is most important) was best with the Smoothie2.
Anybody have a grad student needing something to research?

[rowing]

Single sujbect, multiple trials isn't really a good way to assess this - maybe 10 or 15 subjects doing similar sessions with measurements taken wouuld be better

and repeated randomly over several testing periods over the course of a year with some fixed rate erg score baselines to provide a background reference.

[Stelph]

Kleshnev's most recent newsletter is a comparison between Fat2, Comp, and Smoothie2 with a single subject sculler.
Single sujbect, multiple trials isn't really a good way to assess this - maybe 10 or 15 subjects doing similar sessions with measurements taken wouuld be better but:
The data cited shows - Fat2 is most efficient, whatever that means, and - boat speed (which I'd suggest is most important) was best with the Smoothie2.
Anybody have a grad student needing something to research?

Yes the article was interesting, I had understood that the article was saying that the fat2’s were the most efficient (and actually that reducing the outboard undermined this) plus the sculler had said that they found the fat2’s uncomfortable to row with? potentially then someone who was more comfortable with them might get different results

[Stelph]

With the short rigg, I reckon Fat2s are more suited to a steeper angle to the blade at the catch in the water than Croker arrows. That's one reason I was more comfortable and faster. The other is; that I'm a guy that loves a big powerful finish. The Crokers feel more direct at the catch, but tend to let go of the water far sooner than the Fats2s. So for my big powerful finish, the Fat2s suit my style far more than the arrows. Therefore I was rowing more efficiently with the Fat2s. Although I always felt comfortable, you really need to get the power on to take full advantage of these oars. Definetly not suitable for lightweight women or ageing masters rowers. I'm surprised that more elite heavyweight men and women don't use these oars. Maybe it's the rigging factor and I just fluked the ideal rigg.

isn’t that backwards to what the fat2’s are meant to be good for? Concept suggest the blades are more effective at the front and less at the back than the smoothies?

https://www.concept2.com/oars/oar-options/blades

[oldman]

Kleshnev's most recent newsletter is a comparison between Fat2, Comp, and Smoothie2 with a single subject sculler.
Single sujbect, multiple trials isn't really a good way to assess this - maybe 10 or 15 subjects doing similar sessions with measurements taken wouuld be better but:
The data cited shows - Fat2 is most efficient, whatever that means, and - boat speed (which I'd suggest is most important) was best with the Smoothie2.
Anybody have a grad student needing something to research?

Yes the article was interesting, I had understood that the article was saying that the fat2’s were the most efficient (and actually that reducing the outboard undermined this) plus the sculler had said that they found the fat2’s uncomfortable to row with? potentially then someone who was more comfortable with them might get different results

Did anyone mention the pitch? Fat2s usually have been found to be more stable with a degree or two less pitch. The same was true for the Dreher Apex-R shapes from many moons past.

[rowing]

The rigging story is fishy to start, so don't try to apply too much logic to it.

Fats at 282 vs normal hatchets at 284, and somehow there's magically more clearance?

"I promise, just the tip."

[oldman]

The rigging story is fishy to start, so don't try to apply too much logic to it.

Fats at 282 vs normal hatchets at 284, and somehow there's magically more clearance?

"I promise, just the tip."

It's not magic, it's geometrical mathematics. Basically, two triangles, where rigger height over water line is the same, using the numbers (284:87 and 282:88), the Fat2 is 0.29 cm higher off the water line than the Arrow for the port side. This assumes not "just the tip", but uses centre of pressure of 24 cm from the tip for each blade shape, an assumption without any merit.

[rowing]

The rigging story is fishy to start, so don't try to apply too much logic to it.

Fats at 282 vs normal hatchets at 284, and somehow there's magically more clearance?

"I promise, just the tip."

It's not magic, it's geometrical mathematics. Basically, two triangles, where rigger height over water line is the same, using the numbers (284:87 and 282:88), the Fat2 is 0.29 cm higher off the water line than the Arrow for the port side. This assumes not "just the tip", but uses centre of pressure of 24 cm from the tip for each blade shape, an assumption without any merit.

Widest point of Fat2 is 23cm. Widest point of Smoothie2 is 21.5, assuming this is close to Arrow as a comparable hatchet. That's 1.5 cm, easily overcoming your 0.29 Euclidean spank.

You obviously did not get the "just the tip" joke. It had nothing to do with blade shape. Centre of pressure can f-ck right off.

Maybe I will spot you the amputated corners a la Vortex circumcision, but that still doesn't explain the buffoonery of rigging them 2 cm different in length and claiming a religious experience. The recommended differential, backed up by nearly everyone who has tried it, is 4 to 8cm. Fishy story from the first cast.

[oldman]

The rigging story is fishy to start, so don't try to apply too much logic to it.

Fats at 282 vs normal hatchets at 284, and somehow there's magically more clearance?

"I promise, just the tip."

It's not magic, it's geometrical mathematics. Basically, two triangles, where rigger height over water line is the same, using the numbers (284:87 and 282:88), the Fat2 is 0.29 cm higher off the water line than the Arrow for the port side. This assumes not "just the tip", but uses centre of pressure of 24 cm from the tip for each blade shape, an assumption without any merit.

Widest point of Fat2 is 23cm. Widest point of Smoothie2 is 21.5, assuming this is close to Arrow as a comparable hatchet. That's 1.5 cm, easily overcoming your 0.29 Euclidean spank.

You obviously did not get the "just the tip" joke. It had nothing to do with blade shape. Centre of pressure can f-ck right off.

Maybe I will spot you the amputated corners a la Vortex circumcision, but that still doesn't explain the buffoonery of rigging them 2 cm different in length and claiming a religious experience. The recommended differential, backed up by nearly everyone who has tried it, is 4 to 8cm. Fishy story from the first cast.

Oh, hahahahaha, I get it "just the tip" is just so droll very droll. My post was a punk by the way ("an assumption without any merit")