What are these things

[Stroke4]

I found this picture on row2k and was wondering what are the handles attached to the ends of the oars? I have never seen anything like this before nor heard of it.

http://www.row2k.com/graphics/pf.cfm?20 ... 275-01.jpg

[Nosmo]

Looks like an experimental handle that allows one to pull more straight back and evenly with both arms. The sudden bend at the end where the carbon fiber ends seems like it is to keep the handle hieght at the correct level. Don't really understand how this would effect feathering. Makes sense that it would reduce twisting on one's spine--which would be a big advantage, at least for the health of ones back if not for boat speed. The date on the picture is 2006, so I guess C2 thought it wasn't worth pursing.

[Byron Drachman]

My intuition tells me that it would be not easy to stay squared all the way to the release. It looks like pulling straight back at the finish would want to rotate the oar prematurely. But I don't know anything about this product. Maybe it works great.

Here is another reference:

http://www.powerathletics.com/projects.html

According to that reference, the handle has already been banned by FISA. Bob, any comments?

[Bob S.]

According to that reference, the handle has already been banned by FISA. Bob, any comments?

About what I would expect from FISA. The people who make the rules probably don't row any more, so they don't give a crap about the health of the backs of those who still row. They are interested only in the economic issues, like the costs of innovations.

Maybe it is time to start a new international rowing organization that is willing to experiment with changes like gooney rigs (i.e. fixed or motion limited seats and movable stretcher/outrigger combos) and balance point oar handles. Then there is one that I have often speculated on, a rowing system in which the rower faces the bow. I never came up with any good ideas on that one, but it would be great if someone did.

Bob S.

[Byron Drachman]

According to that reference, the handle has already been banned by FISA. Bob, any comments?

About what I would expect from FISA. The people who make the rules probably don't row any more, so they don't give a crap about the health of the backs of those who still row. They are interested only in the economic issues, like the costs of innovations.

Maybe it is time to start a new international rowing organization that is willing to experiment with changes like gooney rigs (i.e. fixed or motion limited seats and movable stretcher/outrigger combos) and balance point oar handles. Then there is one that I have often speculated on, a rowing system in which the rower faces the bow. I never came up with any good ideas on that one, but it would be great if someone did.

Bob S.

Hi Bob,

Here is a reference to a forward facing rigging.

http://www.frontrower.com/aboutfrontrower.htm

Another reference:

http://www.nakinadesign.com/products/

Like the sliding rigger, it seems to be relegated to recreational rowing.

Byron

[Bob S.]

Hi Bob,

Here is a reference to a forward facing rigging.

http://www.frontrower.com/aboutfrontrower.htm

Another reference:

http://www.nakinadesign.com/products/

Like the sliding rigger, it seems to be relegated to recreational rowing.

Byron

Thanks, Byron. That's great! The first one was sort of the thing that I had in mind and one of the pages showed one that was exactly what I had considered. It was the one that they said was used in a movie in the 90s and was arms only. The disadvantage of that is a combination of poor leverage and short range of motion. A sliding seat with that rig would be of no help because you wouldn't have a long enough stroke to get any advantage out of it. The second site had something that I had not considered at all, but it has the same limitations.

The great thing about the one in the first site (frontrower.com) is that it uses the legs, but I have not been able to figure out how it works from the drawings. I am skeptical about the automatic feathering. I guess that I just don't trust automatic devices very much. (Control Freak Syndrome?)

Bob S.

[Nosmo]

About what I would expect from FISA. The people who make the rules probably don't row any more, so they don't give a crap about the health of the backs of those who still row. They are interested only in the economic issues, like the costs of innovations.

I'm not sure that movable stretchers/outriggers are such a good idea. They would make the boat faster but also eliminate a great deal of the technical aspect of rowing. It would make the sport much simpler, and in my mind less interesting. (I find indoor rowing much less interesting both as a spectator and participant then OTW).

At first glance the BalancePoint oar handles look like such a good idea. They would be a relatively minor additional cost, and I think it would really help reduce injuries. I don't like sweep anymore because of the twisting. I can almost always tell what side a sweep rower rows on just by looking at their spine. The BalancePoint handles would likely make it much easier for a rower to switch sides. That would also be a big help for many programs. Seems like a really stupid decision on FISA's part. Only justification I could see is if it is patented and they don't won't one company controlling a critical design innovation.

[Tinus]

According to that reference, the handle has already been banned by FISA.

Good, very good. If people want to row that way they simply have to take two oars. This handle takes everything out of sweep rowing that makes sweep rowing sweep rowing.

The only important force on the handle is the force perpendicular to the handle anyway. You have to apply forces sideways to be most effective*. This means that you may bend the oar but the forces are still unsymmetrical. This handle mainly incorporates just some extra trouble.


*to imagine how that's possible think of cycling in which you (basically) push downwards to move forwards.

[Bob S.]

I'm not sure that movable stretchers/outriggers are such a good idea.

At first glance the BalancePoint oar handles look like such a good idea.

Nosmo,

I was interested in your comments on these two items, but you didn't touch on the third one, facing the bow when rowing. On one of the sites that Byron posted there is a page showing that device in use at numerous places scattered all around the globe. One of these was San Rafael, CA, so I was wondering if you had seen it or heard about it.

Regards,

Bob S.

[Nosmo]

According to that reference, the handle has already been banned by FISA.

Good, very good. If people want to row that way they simply have to take two oars. This handle takes everything out of sweep rowing that makes sweep rowing sweep rowing.

The only important force on the handle is the force perpendicular to the handle anyway. You have to apply forces sideways to be most effective. This means that you may bend the oar but the forces are still unsymmetrical. This handle mainly incorporates just some extra trouble.

Have you tried it? Having only seen these videos I obviously don't know much about it. I'm not sure what you think it takes out of sweep rowing. It just looks to me like it takes some of the twist and antisymmetry out of it. That was never what I though was important in rowing. But then again I gave up one oar for two.

[Tinus]

According to that reference, the handle has already been banned by FISA.

Good, very good. If people want to row that way they simply have to take two oars. This handle takes everything out of sweep rowing that makes sweep rowing sweep rowing.

The only important force on the handle is the force perpendicular to the handle anyway. You have to apply forces sideways to be most effective. This means that you may bend the oar but the forces are still unsymmetrical. This handle mainly incorporates just some extra trouble.

Have you tried it? Having only seen these videos I obviously don't know much about it. I'm not sure what you think it takes out of sweep rowing. It just looks to me like it takes some of the twist and antisymmetry out of it. That was never what I though was important in rowing. But then again I gave up one oar for two.

I don get why someone would make a device to change sweep rowing why you already have such thing(s) called sculls.

Then again,I commented that the device changes sweep rowing but has to fail on an essential part: The handle is still moving in an arc. Sweep rowing is necessarily asymmetric due to the asymmetric forces imparted on the oar. The thought that a sweep rower is most efficient when he only applies force in the same way as the direction of motion is a fallacy. One could make a device to make sweep rowing symmetric but it would be a device which decreases performance. (I do see value in this handle as a training tool because it demands the rower to pull the same force with both arms and thus promotes the use of both arms.)

I haven't tried them but I do know some bit about physics to anticipate that the "locked on" feeling they talk about is just an increase in static forces and the both arms straight do not cause "greater power application" because you point them into the wrong direction. Diminished back rotation reducing injury is doubtful as there is a simultaneous increase in (static and useless) force. It is not clear which one of the detrimental or positive effects is winning.

[NavigationHazard]

FISA's Rule 1 says

Rowing is the propulsion of a displacement boat, with or without coxswain, by the muscular force of one or more rowers, using oars as simple levers of the second order and sitting with their backs to the direction of movement of the boat. Rowing on a machine or in a tank which simulates the action of rowing in a boat is also considered as rowing. In a rowing boat, all load bearing parts including the axes of moving parts, must be firmly fixed to the body of the boat, but the rower’s seat may move along the axis of the boat.

Presumably the Balance Point oar handle fails the 'simple lever' and 'axes of moving parts must be firmly fixed to the body of the boat' definitional tests.

[Nosmo]

Well as Nav points out it clearly it does violate the definition of rowing.
I'd still be willing to bet that it would decrease injuries. Although really the main problem with sweep is not so much that
it is asymmetrical but that people don't row on both sides often enough.

[Byron Drachman]

Well as Nav points out it clearly it does violate the definition of rowing.
I'd still be willing to bet that it would decrease injuries. Although really the main problem with sweep is not so much that
it is asymmetrical but that people don't row on both sides often enough.

Nosmo is in good company. Steve Fairbairn (probably sometime in the early 1900's) wrote in his book The Complete Steve Fairbairn on Rowing, Kingswood Press, 1990, page, 201,

It is advisable to change oarsmen from one side of the boat to the other, on alternate days. Being able to row on either side is very necessary in order to prevent any oarsman from getting lopsided, and to double his usefulness as well as his chances of getting into a crew. Many a man has lost his Blue from being one-sided, with only one hand that has learnt the intricacies of the finish. 

As far as I can tell, this wise advice is not followed much.

[c2jonw]

If you look back far enough you often find that there are no new ideas.....
http://www.rowinghistory.net/Patents/540,579.pdf
We have one of these in our conference room.....C2JonW