Old wooden sculls technique

Jake · Joined: 18 Aug 2007 Posts: 17

Dear all,
Following a bout of flu, I have now lost enough weight to scull my 25
year old cedar Stampfli scull without the bottom stays of the riggers
hitting the water and the stern bobbing under.
Further to this, and coincident with the other post talking about how
fast the forerunners of carbon boats still are, or aren't, I'm
proposing to race it in March at a local head race (Head of the
Stour).
To keep faithful to the retro early 80s look and to hell with the
speed and rowability, I have secured a pair of similar aged Sutton
wooden macon sculls.
Had my first outing with this set up the other day. Apart from
initially feeling less stable and wanting to dive, these sculls seem
to want to just rip through the water throwing up sheets of white
water, rather than grip and give me something to push against. They
are properly covered. (I think... upper edge of blade about an inch
below the water surface)
Is the technique different with these old sculls? I'm used to C2
smoothies, having moved to them after about 3 outings with macons and
never been back since. Is it necessary to be gentler with the pressure
at the front of the stroke or something? As my workout progressed the
blades seemed to slip less, but this was probably more due to the
tailing off of my power, and I'm concerned in the excitement of a race
I might expend a lot of effort whisking the Stour into a frenzy rather
than moving the boat.

Archived from group: rec>sport>rowing

James. · Joined: 22 Jan 2008 Posts: 15

On Feb 22, 3:50 pm, Jake wrote:
> Dear all,
> Following a bout of flu, I have now lost enough weight to scull my 25
> year old cedar Stampfli scull without the bottom stays of the riggers
> hitting the water and the stern bobbing under.
> Further to this, and coincident with the other post talking about how
> fast the forerunners of carbon boats still are, or aren't, I'm
> proposing to race it in March at a local head race (Head of the
> Stour).
> To keep faithful to the retro early 80s look and to hell with the
> speed and rowability, I have secured a pair of similar aged Sutton
> wooden macon sculls.
> Had my first outing with this set up the other day. Apart from
> initially feeling less stable and wanting to dive, these sculls seem
> to want to just rip through the water throwing up sheets of white
> water, rather than grip and give me something to push against. They
> are properly covered. (I think... upper edge of blade about an inch
> below the water surface)
> Is the technique different with these old sculls? I'm used to C2
> smoothies, having moved to them after about 3 outings with macons and
> never been back since. Is it necessary to be gentler with the pressure
> at the front of the stroke or something? As my workout progressed the
> blades seemed to slip less, but this was probably more due to the
> tailing off of my power, and I'm concerned in the excitement of a race
> I might expend a lot of effort whisking the Stour into a frenzy rather
> than moving the boat.

I'm most definitely not an authority on wooden sculls and if there is
a different technique to them, Im sure there are others far better
qualified to answer on that score, but were I to see someone doing
that with, say, a pair of smoothies I would check the inboard/outboard
lengths firstly and looking at decreasing the inboard so that you get
more leverage on the spoon, and secondly check that the scull/swivel
are not pitched at all, if it is over pitched then you may be prone to
washing out (not sure if thats what you are describing or just that
there is no grip in general). Re-reading what you said, they are
inclined to dive which suggests under pitching (sitting with the blade
square the top edge is further towards the bow than the lower edge).

What is the sleeve on the blade made of? I would imagine that the
older style with rounded sleeves rather than the plastic newer ones
may take a little more skill to feather/square to the right angle.

Charles Carroll · Joined: 18 Aug 2007 Posts: 114

Jake -

Last summer I played with a macon type set of sculls for a few outings. What
I found is that it was much more difficult to get the macon type blades to
lock in. The Dreher Apex-REX blades that I row with are much more forgiving
of bad timing and other clumsiness at the catch.

What I learned: if I wanted to scull well with the macons, I could not rush
into the catch. I had to be relaxed. And absolutely key to my being relaxed
was to keep a loose grip on the oar handles as I immersed the blades and
waited for them to lock in. And lastly I had to use an "easy beginning" at
the catch, that is, a "thrust-stroke." If I took the catch in exactly this
way, then I could load the pins every bit as much with the macons as I could
with the Apex-REX sculls.

So not rushing into the catch, keeping relaxed, keeping a loose grip on the
oar handles, waiting for the blades to lock in, an easy beginning and good
timing is what worked for me. I, however, make no claims that these things
will work for anyone else. On the other hand, it is hard to imagine that
they wouldn't. In any event, you might give these things a try.

Of course this only addresses the subject of blade shape. Blade material
(wood, carbon fiber, etc.) may be an entirely different subject. But doesn't
this beg the question, namely, does the material out of which a blade is
made matter all that much? Or should we give more weight to the shape of the
blade itself?

Cordially,

Charles

Carl Douglas · Joined: 18 Aug 2007 Posts: 93

Charles Carroll wrote:
> Jake -
>
> Last summer I played with a macon type set of sculls for a few outings.
> What I found is that it was much more difficult to get the macon type
> blades to lock in. The Dreher Apex-REX blades that I row with are much
> more forgiving of bad timing and other clumsiness at the catch.
>
> What I learned: if I wanted to scull well with the macons, I could not
> rush into the catch. I had to be relaxed. And absolutely key to my being
> relaxed was to keep a loose grip on the oar handles as I immersed the
> blades and waited for them to lock in. And lastly I had to use an "easy
> beginning" at the catch, that is, a "thrust-stroke." If I took the catch
> in exactly this way, then I could load the pins every bit as much with
> the macons as I could with the Apex-REX sculls.
>
> So not rushing into the catch, keeping relaxed, keeping a loose grip on
> the oar handles, waiting for the blades to lock in, an easy beginning
> and good timing is what worked for me. I, however, make no claims that
> these things will work for anyone else. On the other hand, it is hard to
> imagine that they wouldn't. In any event, you might give these things a
> try.
>
> Of course this only addresses the subject of blade shape. Blade material
> (wood, carbon fiber, etc.) may be an entirely different subject. But
> doesn't this beg the question, namely, does the material out of which a
> blade is made matter all that much? Or should we give more weight to the
> shape of the blade itself?
>
> Cordially,
>
> Charles

I think what you found at the catch, Charles, was that any blade needs
to be buried quickly for it to lock.

At the catch the blade follows a complex 3D path, which for simplicity
can be taken as entering both tip-first (the water flows from tip to
root) _&_ lower-edge-first (the water flows from bottom edge to top
edge) at the same time.

The tip & the lower edge are both curved sternwards, & it is ideal that
your blade enter at such a combination of both downwards & sternwards
speeds that these 2 edges slice cleanly (i.e. at the most appropriate
angles) into the water.

If you hit too fast sternwards, you'll scoop into the water. The blade
grips the water largely by the suction force over its convex back face,
_not_ by the pressure of water on its concave face, so to resist applied
load it needs that back face fully covered by solid water. If you scoop
water, the back face remains dry &, when that happens, the water's
connection with & resistance to the blade is weak so it slips & scoops
some more.

At the catch, as long as the back of the blade remains immersed it
doesn't take a lot of cover to resist the relatively light load that any
rower applies at that point (no, the catch is never anything like as
hard as we imagine it to be!). So the macon's lesser area is not of
itself a drawback at the catch. However, unlike the cleaver, the its
lower edge is not parallel to the water surface at entry, so its area %
of immersion builds up less rapidly, making it a bit less tolerant of
you hitting the water too fast sternwards & hence more likely to scoop
water when you do.

It is perfectly possible with macons to get a solid & early lock onto
the catch, & quite unnecessary to do a soft early part & wait until
later to pile on the load. You just have to make sure you cover quickly
& time the load application to coincide with entry rather than precede
it. Since loading before entry is a real boat-stopper technique,
training with macons ought only to be a good thing.

I would agree that Jake needs to check the blade-sleeve pitches. If the
macons have elderly sleeves he may find they don't hold a good square,
or are incorrectly pitched, & he may also find that they don't hold a
good feather in modern C-II oarlocks which have different feather angles
to the older style of gate.

As for boat performance: you may find that, although there are
innovative boats around (both "plastic" & in wood composite) there are a
lot of supposedly modern shells which bear remarkable likeness in hull
shape to boats of previous generations. Imitation has always been the
sincerest form of flattery.

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)

Edgar · Joined: 17 Aug 2007 Posts: 64

"Jake" wrote in message @60g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> Dear all,
> Following a bout of flu, I have now lost enough weight to scull my 25
> year old cedar Stampfli scull without the bottom stays of the riggers
> hitting the water and the stern bobbing under.
> Further to this, and coincident with the other post talking about how
> fast the forerunners of carbon boats still are, or aren't, I'm
> proposing to race it in March at a local head race (Head of the
> Stour).
> To keep faithful to the retro early 80s look and to hell with the
> speed and rowability, I have secured a pair of similar aged Sutton
> wooden macon sculls.
> Had my first outing with this set up the other day. Apart from
> initially feeling less stable and wanting to dive, these sculls seem
> to want to just rip through the water throwing up sheets of white
> water, rather than grip and give me something to push against. They
> are properly covered. (I think... upper edge of blade about an inch
> below the water surface)
> Is the technique different with these old sculls? I'm used to C2
> smoothies, having moved to them after about 3 outings with macons and
> never been back since. Is it necessary to be gentler with the pressure
> at the front of the stroke or something? As my workout progressed the
> blades seemed to slip less, but this was probably more due to the
> tailing off of my power, and I'm concerned in the excitement of a race
> I might expend a lot of effort whisking the Stour into a frenzy rather
> than moving the boat.

Check the pitch on your wooden sculls. Some of them have an extra 2 degrees
built in so this may be why you are washing out.

Carl Douglas · Joined: 18 Aug 2007 Posts: 93

Carl Douglas wrote:
> Charles Carroll wrote:

It occurs to me that my 2nd para might be better understood if amended thus:

>
> At the catch the blade follows a complex 3D path
WRT the stationary water
, which for simplicity
> can be taken as entering both tip-first (the water flows from tip to
> root) _&_ lower-edge-first (the water flows from bottom edge to top
> edge) at the same time.
>

It's not at all easy to visualise how a blade works in & through the
water, but it deserves careful analysis. The boat is moving at a
varying velocity relative to the water, taking the pin with it. The oar
is rotating in the horizontal plane WRT the moving pin & is, in addition
to those motions, also rotating in the vertical plane WRT the pin,
especially at catch & finish. The blade, out at the far end of the oar,
is thus moving & rotating in a complex path through the water, the which
is further determined by how you choose to use & load the oar. Some
mental gymnastics are called for!

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)

Henry Law · Joined: 17 Aug 2007 Posts: 51

Charles Carroll wrote:
> What I learned: if I wanted to scull well with the macons, I could not
> rush into the catch. I had to be relaxed. And absolutely key to my being
> relaxed was to keep a loose grip on the oar handles as I immersed the
> blades and waited for them to lock in.

At the risk of hijacking the thread (but that doesn't seem to matter in
this group!) I have to ask another one of my maybe-stupid questions
about this "locking in" stuff. The description of "waiting" suggests
that what's happening is related to pressure on the bow-facing side of
the blade (what I call the back but it's as well to be precise). Surely
that means pressure in the wrong (down-slowing, race-losing,
beer-warming) direction?

--

Henry Law Manchester, England

David McC · Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 11

On 25 Feb, 12:46, Henry Law wrote:
> Charles Carroll wrote:
> > What I learned: if I wanted to scull well with the macons, I could not
> > rush into the catch. I had to be relaxed. And absolutely key to my being
> > relaxed was to keep a loose grip on the oar handles as I immersed the
> > blades and waited for them to lock in.
>
> At the risk of hijacking the thread (but that doesn't seem to matter in
> this group!)

It just shows that nothing can be considered in isolation. Every
thread should be hijacked eventually.

> I have to ask another one of my maybe-stupid questions
> about this "locking in" stuff. The description of "waiting" suggests
> that what's happening is related to pressure on the bow-facing side of
> the blade (what I call the back but it's as well to be precise). Surely
> that means pressure in the wrong (down-slowing, race-losing,
> beer-warming) direction?
>
> --
>
> Henry Law Manchester, England

If my understanding is correct, this is the old lift argument/theory/
hypothesis/guess (;^).

The people explaining lift to us say that the angle of the catch means
the lift overpowers any pressure you are worried about at the catch
because the angle of the blade means the leading edge is travelling
(nearly) in the direction of travel of the system. I was assuming the
old blades needed a bit longer for the lift to take effect because of
the different characteristics of the shape of the blade.

Don't know if I'm right, of course.

Taniwha

Carl Douglas · Joined: 18 Aug 2007 Posts: 93

David McC wrote:
> On 25 Feb, 12:46, Henry Law wrote:
>
>>Charles Carroll wrote:
>>
>>>What I learned: if I wanted to scull well with the macons, I could not
>>>rush into the catch. I had to be relaxed. And absolutely key to my being
>>>relaxed was to keep a loose grip on the oar handles as I immersed the
>>>blades and waited for them to lock in.
>>
>>At the risk of hijacking the thread (but that doesn't seem to matter in
>>this group!)
>
>
> It just shows that nothing can be considered in isolation. Every
> thread should be hijacked eventually.
>
>
>>I have to ask another one of my maybe-stupid questions
>>about this "locking in" stuff. The description of "waiting" suggests
>>that what's happening is related to pressure on the bow-facing side of
>>the blade (what I call the back but it's as well to be precise). Surely
>>that means pressure in the wrong (down-slowing, race-losing,
>>beer-warming) direction?
>>
>>--
>>
>>Henry Law Manchester, England
>
>
> If my understanding is correct, this is the old lift argument/theory/
> hypothesis/guess (;^).
>
> The people explaining lift to us say that the angle of the catch means
> the lift overpowers any pressure you are worried about at the catch
> because the angle of the blade means the leading edge is travelling
> (nearly) in the direction of travel of the system. I was assuming the
> old blades needed a bit longer for the lift to take effect because of
> the different characteristics of the shape of the blade.
>
> Don't know if I'm right, of course.
>
> Taniwha

Mmmm.

To answer Henry first: as you say, no case can be made for
"pressurising" the bow (convex) face of the blade, other than getting
into the bar early. It has to slow you down & does nothing to help.

Next, to Taniwha: the blade is a constant-thickness wing or foil with a
lot of camber (curvature). Having a rather crude leading edge (tip), to
work well needs the oncoming flow (which is from tip to root at the
catch) to be aligned near-parallel to the first part of the blade's tip.
Since the tip curves towards the stern, that means that every other
part of the blade's convex face is increasingly angled forwards. This
curvature has the effect of accelerating & pulling the attached flow
around it. That acceleration & change of direction of the flow over the
convex face is what causes the pressure in the adjacent fluid flow to
fall. And it is that fall in pressure, acting over the entire convex
face, which provided the reaction that resists the load you apply to the
blade.

Of necessity, the reaction generated in this way exactly matches to
force you apply at the blade.

As I've said before, it's a complex 3D flow situation. Here we've
considered only the flows in the horizontal plane - i.e. 2-D. But there
are also vertical motions, with their own implications for flows
relative to the blade & consequent lift generation. Which is why the
way the blade's depth & its rates of vertical motion at various parts of
the stroke, not least at the catch, do really matter & do really affect
the propulsive efficiency of your rowing stroke.

Propulsive efficiency is the proportion of the total work that you do
which is actually used to propel the boat, the rest being lost in
disturbances & gross movements in the water of & around the puddle.
Efficiency is not a fixed number but strongly depends on how you row. A
typical figure might be around 70% (there is a distinct lack of serious
& realistic research here, hence the "around").

Suppose by adjusting blade technique you raised that 70% efficiency to
71%? That very modest change means you'd get 1.4% more useful work out
of each stroke & your boat would go about 0.5% faster. That's 10
metres/33 feet over 2000m, which is 1 length for a 2x or 2- or 2/3
length for an 8+. You'd get all that for _no_ extra work. And you'd
have done 1 less stroke to achieve it.

So you can get something for nothing in this world - as long as you're
willing to apply those little grey cells to the task.

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)

vetc1x · Joined: 18 Aug 2007 Posts: 6

On Feb 25, 11:58 am, Carl Douglas wrote:
> So you can get something for nothing in this world - as long as you're
> willing to apply those little grey cells to the task.

Just to reassure RSR readers that Newton's (and Einstein's) laws still
apply, and we're not about to end the Universe As We Know It by
causing a time-vortex-continuum-anomaly thingy. Fortunately there are
many of us for whom it takes more effort to apply those neurones than
any benefit we might gain in rowing more efficiently - so balance is
restored, and any black holes detected are caused by Squad crews as
they approach the speed of light.

PW

Wingfield Sculls 07 >From the Times today: " Drysdale's solo win Rowing Mahe Drysdale, the three-times world sculling champion from New Zealand, raced unopposed from Putney to Mortlake yesterday to become the 86th winner of the Wingfield Sculls. Drysdale had a record in mind

Dreher ex demonstraton sculls (UK) Anyone considering a new pair of Dreher sculls for the new season? We have stock available for sale at a discount. These have been used a couple of times by potential customers and so they are not brand new. I will be visiting London on 2

Weybridge Silver Sculls Owing to difficulties with our web hosting service, I have not yet been able to upload the start order to the Weybridge Rowing Club site. In the meantime you can find it at Caroline

Technique / Coxswain Evalutations I'm putting together formal rower and coxswain evaluations forms. I have most of it's done, but looking for input and suggestions as what to definitely use or keep out. There was something on a web site somewhere but haven't found it yet. I never had thes

New Sculling and Rowing Technique DVD Shameless plug... but I want you all to KNOW that you heard it first from Rowperfect UK.... Paul "Tommo" Thompson of GB Rowing fame is publishing a DVD companion to his book on Sculling.