The long awaited "game changer" ?

[gdoyle]

http://rowingnews.com/index.php?option= ... m=facebook

Have to admit it looks impressive. Hope to see it up close and see a crew race one at the Head of the Charles!

[1xsculler]

Pocock's close relationship with Boeing R&D and my time spent in their workshop has always impressed me.

[caustic]

It looked pretty dang cool in person, that was for sure!

I have no doubt that if any of these developments make it to production, you'll likely see it on a UW boat first - but even *I* don't know when that'll be; both UW and Pocock are playing that card close.

But having seen the shell, I think that it certainly shows what the envelope of carbon fiber development can look like.

[southernrower]

3 questions-
1. Since the attachment looks to be thru the hull, will there be hull damage instead of gunwhale damage when one of these wings gets whacked?
2. Are we back to ribs again with this config or is it supported differently?
3. Is the wing carbon or aluminum? If it is aluminum, how does it fit into the carbon slot?

[KitD]

Bow-coxed 8s are banned in the UK. Considered dangerous since the cox has a big boat with very little visibility.

Have any similar concerns been raised in the US?

[caustic]

No one's really marketed a bow-coxed 8 in the US heavily for a long time. I'm confused how having the cox up front would inhibit visibility, though - we'd not have episodes like this if the cox was in the bow:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0Oq2gi_p4Q

[gdoyle]

Agreed. If the safety claims were truly valid, bow-coxed fours would be banned as well. Seems disingenuous to have it okay for fours but not eights. An elite bow-coxed four would easily go as fast as a schoolboy bow-coxed eight might. So whatever convoluted misguided Oxford physics might have been drummed up to justify that is an insult to the academic robes.

So...back to it....dangerous how? in a head-on collision? Sure....coxswain eats it....blade sandwich or worse. Never liked bow-coxed fours for that reason. But again, if we have fours....why not eights?

No....I think the reason is much simpler. What can the coxswain SEE in terms of managing the crew? Or rather NOT see? Blade heights, timing, etc. Again, never liked bow coxed fours for that reason, but it's magnified in an eight. While the box-coxed four helped minimize the effect of coxswains moving their weight from side to side to struggle to see around the rowers, arguably more disruptive to a four-oared boat, it sacrificed technical monitoring. That sacrifice is compounded in an eight of unmonitored rowers.

In short, where's the best place to plop the babysitter?

[southernrower]

I must have been transported to a parallel universe. Gdoyle and Caustic agreed.

[Stewie Griffin Should Cox]

In short, where's the best place to plop the babysitter?

I prefer the term Passenger

[KitD]

To be more specific, they are banned from racing on the Tideway in London, but several other big races have followed suit and this has effect of ruling out any market for them. The reasoning was based on a bad collision during overtaking involving a bow-coxed 8 where the ultimate cause was deemed to be the inability of the cox to see and react quick enough. Yes, the crew can speak to him/her but, during a race, that introduces vital seconds to the process and an 8 is pretty unresponsive as it is.

It's a shame. We have a bow-coxed 8 and despite being 25 years old, it's still one of the quickest boats in the shed but now only gets used by the non-racing masters. In fact, it's so old, I think fatsculler may have rowed in it once, quite fast

So I was wondering whether similar incidents had been seen in the US? Obviously not, but I'm afraid the UK market for the bow-coxed version is closed.

[gdoyle]

I'd expect exactly that sort of crack wisdom from a country that holds a race called "Bumps" and demands an inquiry to sort out what went wrong when a collision occurs.

Gee....you'd think they might have instituted mandatory retrofit flotation after a tragedy....

[pierre]

[...]
It's a shame. We have a bow-coxed 8 and despite being 25 years old, it's still one of the quickest boats in the shed but now only gets used by the non-racing masters. In fact, it's so old, I think fatsculler may have rowed in it once, quite fast
So I was wondering whether similar incidents had been seen in the US? Obviously not, but I'm afraid the UK market for the bow-coxed version is closed.

When the rowers are on par (stroke seat to stroke seat) the longer bow will make the bow-coxed 8 look faster! At least from the inside of the boat.


But I'm trouble with that thread. As mentionned by Southernrower, what-if Caustic was right?
http://youtu.be/FpYiprg6f_I

[caustic]

Overall, I'm torn. Strangely enough, I *agree* with a lot of Greg's statements- a coxwain in the stern can definitely help keep rowers on task by calling out folks who are out of sync.

From an engineering perspective, I like the idea of a bow-cox. Having that mass up in the bow and not in the stern actually reduces porpoising of the shell, cutting down on parasitic wave motion drag. A boat that bobs less, moves forward faster.

As a stroke, I am also torn. On the plus side, this means that I don't have to feel weird staring at the coxwain without talking, I can suffer alone. At the same time, on bright sunny days, the reflection off the stern deck is awfully distracting.

[vancbc]

As a stroke, I am also torn. On the plus side, this means that I don't have to feel weird staring at the coxwain without talking, I can suffer alone. At the same time, on bright sunny days, the reflection off the stern deck is awfully distracting.

As a stroke, I think it is key to have the communication directly with the Cox, feedback in both directions about boat feel, rates in training and races are important to the success of a boat.

[gdoyle]

I like the *choice*. Unless Sir John Gielgud can prove it undermines the character of the sport, I reject the House of Lords' perspective and view with colonial suspicion all foppish handwringing about safety. More useful time could be spent inventing emergency brakes! (And no....caustic in the stroke seat does not count..)

Back to safety....in general, if you're going in the same direction, the person who runs into something is at fault, not the person who gets run into. In fact, in some states, highway law doesn't care what the person in front of you was doing. If you hit them from behind, you're legally toast.

Moreover, on the physics side, I don't drive from the backseat or trunk of my car. I drive from the front, and it's my responsibility to know how wide a clearance I need behind me.

Final verdict....that foxhound does not have the scent.