Sculling in rollers broadside on

Charles Carroll · Joined: 18 Aug 2007 Posts: 114

Yesterday, while making the turn at #2, a Channel Marker, I found myself in
a bit of trouble and stopped rowing for a minute of two.

What happened was that a series of rolling waves-I would guess about a
foot-and-a-half to two feet high-came at me broadside on. I was sculling
with a partner, David Lay, who shouted at me to row hard. But I just couldn't
see how to do it without rolling over, so I decided to wait out the series.

David later insisted that with just two hard strokes with my starboard oar I
could have turned the shell perpendicular to the rollers and caught a ride
to Cone Rock, which was the next turn, or way point if you will.

I don't know what to think. Next time I find myself in a similar predicament
I'll try David's advice.

In the meantime I was wondering if everyone agrees with David?

All comments would be appreciated.

Cordially,

Charles

Archived from group: rec>sport>rowing

Mike De Petris · Joined: 15 Nov 2007 Posts: 21

On Feb 16, 9:29 pm, "Charles Carroll"
wrote:
> David later insisted that with just two hard strokes with my starboard oar I
> could have turned the shell perpendicular to the rollers and caught a ride
> to Cone Rock, which was the next turn, or way point if you will.

seems reasonable, even if you would probably get some water that way,
maybe not if you are able to time it well, it should be easy to take
away from the bad spot anyway even if a bit wet

unmike on the sea waves

sully · Joined: 17 Feb 2008 Posts: 4

On Feb 16, 12:29 pm, "Charles Carroll"
wrote:
> Yesterday, while making the turn at #2, a Channel Marker, I found myself in
> a bit of trouble and stopped rowing for a minute of two.
>
> What happened was that a series of rolling waves-I would guess about a
> foot-and-a-half to two feet high-came at me broadside on. I was sculling
> with a partner, David Lay, who shouted at me to row hard. But I just couldn't
> see how to do it without rolling over, so I decided to wait out the series..
>
> David later insisted that with just two hard strokes with my starboard oar I
> could have turned the shell perpendicular to the rollers and caught a ride
> to Cone Rock, which was the next turn, or way point if you will.
>
> I don't know what to think. Next time I find myself in a similar predicament
> I'll try David's advice.
>
> In the meantime I was wondering if everyone agrees with David?
>
> All comments would be appreciated.

If you were in an Aero, I'd say go for it, you possibly could catch a
2 ft wave if it came from far enough away, but at same time, you can
"pearl" the bow (sink it under water) which has an effect of rolling
you out of boat. Ok to do if water ok.

In your single I disrecommend it fully. There is good chance of
suspending your boat between bow and stern and cracking it. Maybe a
CD can stand up to it, I don't know, but most other singles aren't
going to hold up to that very well.

Big big wakes go parallel, you did good.

Mike

ken · Joined: 18 Aug 2007 Posts: 6

On 16 Feb, 20:29, "Charles Carroll"
wrote:

> What happened was that a series of rolling waves-I would guess about a
> foot-and-a-half to two feet high-came at me broadside on. I was sculling
> with a partner, David Lay, who shouted at me to row hard. But I just couldn't
> see how to do it without rolling over, so I decided to wait out the series.

There are waves and there are waves. I have rowed many times in waves
as well as signifcant wash in a shell boat. Waves that are gentle and
well spread apart are easy enough to row through (balance isn;t easy
but it can be done). Waves that are steeper are a no-no and you did
right to sit it out. I have sat out waves 5 or 6 foot high and it's
quite fun as you rise and fall; one moment you see across the water
and the next all you see is a wall of water as you sit in a trough.
It's safe enough so long as you keep your sculls in hands. I spent
many years rowing on a commercial river that starts at at an estuary
and we rowed about a mile and a half before reaching the narrow
reaches.

In later years I did scull with a flotation device just in case, as it
was a 400 metre swim to shore at some points.

Turning right angles to waves will test the boat construction - not
wise, even if you do feel confident. I have seen many boats snap
(usually just at the front of the cockpit area).

Following waves is actually quite a skill; as the boat comes down off
a wave, you often lose steering ability, the boat can turn at right
angles to the wave and the next one smacks you in the side while you
are trying to sort yourself out.

We landed on a beach (a cove) and it was fun coming in when a large
wash followed you in - they get larger as the water gets shallower!

Ken Hastie

Charles Carroll · Joined: 18 Aug 2007 Posts: 114

Hello unmike on the sea waves,

I retrospect I think you may have the right idea. When I found myself
stalled in that series of rollers coming broadside on, I probably should
have just pulled hard on my starboard scull to bring the shell perpendicular
to the rollers.

It might not have worked and I may have gone for a swim. But if it had
worked, as David insisted it would, I would have had been flying.

Cordially,

Charles

Charles Carroll · Joined: 18 Aug 2007 Posts: 114

Hello Mike,

Am I jealous of your trip! Hope your business isn't too demanding and that
you are having an incredibly neat time.

Re "suspending [my] boat between bow and stern and cracking it." On Carl's
website in the "Design/construction" area is a photograph of an ancient Bob
Gullett accompanying Guin Batten on her crossing of the English Channel. Bob
is sculling his ancient Carl Douglas 1x.

You can't tell from the photograph on the website because the photo is so
small but Bob's bow and stern are suspended from two rolling swells. Carl
has a larger version of the photograph, which he showed Sandy and me when we
were in Staines. I would guess the larger photo is something like 18" x
24.", It reveals the suspension much more clearly. I think there is almost
two feet of empty space between sculler and water.

I remember. It was late afternoon when Carl showed us the larger photograph.
We were tired. We were full of Pride. I just could not believe what I was
seeing. I wish I could describe the grin on Carl's face. Here is this old
guy in this old skinny boat somewhere in the English Channel suspended off
the water with only air underneath him looking as if he didn't have a care
in the world! I would never have guessed from the smaller photograph on the
website.

Anyway, I'm not too worried about cracking up Carl's shell in some rolling
swells.

I, however, am worried about being able to stay in the boat. Your point
about the Aero seems right on. An Aero is six feet less boat to have to turn
around in swells.

I confess I am having a little difficulty around the number 2 channel
marker. For people who don't know San Francisco, this is where Richardson
Bay with an average depth of 20 feet turns into San Francisco Bay with an
average depth of 90 feet. On difficult days the water and wind at this
channel marker can come at you from many different directions. So it can be
a bit challenging working your way around number 2 in a fine boat. Truth to
tell sometimes it isn't all that pleasant in an Aero either. But it can be
done. The needed skills can be learned. You just need to be a little more
thoughtful and aware of what you are doing.

But, Mike, you know all this. I am just writing for those who aren't
familiar with our waters.

Before I stop, I probably should mention, too, that re the question of
catching a ride -- surfing swells? -- the Carl Douglas does just fine.

About a week or so ago I was with David again and rowing back in from number
2 when a couple of large waves started to roll over me. This time I was
perpendicular to them. I was watching the stern start to go under when David
shouted, "Row hard, Charles! Row!" What the hell, I thought to myself, let's
just see what happens. I stood on the stretcher and pulled on those oar
handles with everything I had in me. My stern started to come up, my bow
started to go under, and I thought, oh my god I'm going to flip my precious
shell stern over bow.

But David was screaming, "Row! Row damnit!" so I took a second hard stroke,
as hard as the first. I felt the bow knife into the water, then miraculously
the stern started to go down. The bow had gone down, then started back up.
It came out of the water and I was flying.

"I knew it! I knew!" screamed David.

Whenever I put the boat on slings, David goes over the hull geometry and
explains to anyone who will listen how "unique" it is. He says that the
shell is designed for the bow to knife into the water, go under, then plane
back out. He is absolutely convinced that Carl's boat can handle almost any
water you can find in the Bay, and actually handle it better than the boats
we are accustomed to. He starting to sound like Carl. He is even using the
same phrase, "This technologically-averse sport of ours."

Did you see "Charlie Wilson's War?" At the very end of the film Gust
Avrakotos, Philip Seymour Hoffman's character, tells Charlie Wilson about a
Zen master who whenever he is told about some great benefit that is going to
result from some heroic action, replies with the same refrain, "We'll see."

Cordially,

Charles

sully · Joined: 17 Feb 2008 Posts: 4

On Feb 19, 10:59 am, "Charles Carroll"
wrote:

snip
>
> "I knew it! I knew!" screamed David.
>
> Whenever I put the boat on slings, David goes over the hull geometry and
> explains to anyone who will listen how "unique" it is. He says that the
> shell is designed for the bow to knife into the water, go under, then plane
> back out. He is absolutely convinced that Carl's boat can handle almost any
> water you can find in the Bay, and actually handle it better than the boats
> we are accustomed to. He starting to sound like Carl. He is even using the
> same phrase, "This technologically-averse sport of ours."

I'm going to need a lot of convincing that the CD hull is going to be
that much better than say a surfski hull or say a Pocock Trainer
hull in riding open ocean swells. You said 1 ft wave which I
returned
as possibly a very large wake, which I insist you take sideways no
matter what pics you've seen.

I saw a Pocock C shell survive a fall off a trailer with just minor
scratches
going 50 mph. I don't recommend it for other Pocock C shells....

The primary determinant is going to be the wave length and height.
I rode bay swells many years ago in a Pocock trainer out in front
of Redwood city, and it gets done typically and regularly in surfskis
and single and double outriggers.

For that matter, I bodysurf all the time, and I don't have anything
like a
CD hull.

If the trough between the wave peaks is long enough, you can ride
just about anything. Big old heavy OC-6 (big outriggers) regularly
catch open ocean swells in their races, indeed that's much of the
skill of the racing, and the team will take short bursts of speed to
catch the swell, and ride it for hundreds of yards or more, taking
more bursts where they need.

Nice wave, dude. Cowabunga!

Charles Carroll · Joined: 18 Aug 2007 Posts: 114

Hello Mike,

You raise an interesting question.

I have read much praise of the all wood shells that George Pocock built. I
am completely ready to concede that they were beautiful to look at,
magnificent in fact, and as fast and rugged as anything made in their day.
But can an all wood shell match the durability and toughness of the
composite shells that Carl currently is building?

I am not a materials engineer. All I have to go on is what I have read about
Carl's shells. Thus all I can offer is to repeat what someone else has said.

But I can say from firsthand experience that the Carl Douglas I scull is
surprisingly durable and tough. I use the word "surprisingly" because I
expected a lot, and got so much more than I expected.

What I did not expect is that the Carl Douglas would handle to water as well
as it does. I must tell you I am really pleased with it.

But I can't compare it to the hulls of a surfski or a Pocock Trainer. I don't
even know what these hulls look like.

All I can do is repeat what I wrote in my last post. The rolling swells came
straight at me. I was perpendicular to them. As David shouted "row," I stood
up on the stretcher and pulled with everything I had, and the bow went
under. The second stroke the bow came up, planed, and I was flying.

For sure I am not the bodysurfer you are. But I did grow up a bit in Long
Beach. We lived on Ocean Blvd right across from the Beach, and I went
swimming every day and spent a lot of time body surfing. So I know what it
feels like to surf a wave. And for sure my twenty-seven foot long, 30 lbs
heavy, 10 inch wide Carl Douglas was out in front moving smoothly, in fact
moving more smoothly than I was ever able to move my old Mass 24.

Cordially,

Charles

Charles Carroll · Joined: 18 Aug 2007 Posts: 114

Hello Mike,

You raise an interesting question.

I have read much praise of the all wood shells that George Pocock built. I
am completely ready to concede that they were beautiful to look at,
magnificent in fact, and as fast and rugged as anything made in their day.
But can an all wood shell match the durability and toughness of the
composite shells that Carl currently is building?

I am not a materials engineer. All I have to go on is what I have read about
Carl's shells. Thus all I can offer is to repeat what someone else has said.

But I can say from firsthand experience that the Carl Douglas I scull is
surprisingly durable and tough. I use the word "surprisingly" because I
expected a lot, and got so much more than I expected.

What I did not expect is that the Carl Douglas would handle water as well as
it does. I must tell you I am really pleased with it.

But I can't compare it to the hulls of a surfski or a Pocock Trainer. I don't
even know what these hulls look like.

All I can do is repeat what I wrote in my last post. The rolling swells came
straight at me. I was perpendicular to them. As David shouted "row," I stood
up on the stretcher and pulled with everything I had, and the bow went
under. The second stroke the bow came up, planed, and I was flying.

For sure I am not the bodysurfer you are. But I did grow up a bit in Long
Beach. We lived on Ocean Blvd right across from the Beach, and I went
swimming every day and spent a lot of time body surfing. So I know what it
feels like to surf a wave. And for sure my twenty-seven foot long, 30 lbs
heavy, 10 inch wide Carl Douglas was out in front moving smoothly, in fact
moving more smoothly than I was ever able to move my old Mass 24.

Cordially,

Charles

paul_v_smith · Joined: 18 Aug 2007 Posts: 48

On Feb 19, 7:39 pm, "Charles Carroll"
wrote:
> Hello Mike,
>
> You raise an interesting question.
>
> I have read much praise of the all wood shells that George Pocock built. I
> am completely ready to concede that they were beautiful to look at,
> magnificent in fact, and as fast and rugged as anything made in their day.
> But can an all wood shell match the durability and toughness of the
> composite shells that Carl currently is building?
>
> I am not a materials engineer. All I have to go on is what I have read about
> Carl's shells. Thus all I can offer is to repeat what someone else has said.
>
> But I can say from firsthand experience that the Carl Douglas I scull is
> surprisingly durable and tough. I use the word "surprisingly" because I
> expected a lot, and got so much more than I expected.
>
> What I did not expect is that the Carl Douglas would handle to water as well
> as it does. I must tell you I am really pleased with it.
>
> But I can't compare it to the hulls of a surfski or a Pocock Trainer. I don't
> even know what these hulls look like.
>
> All I can do is repeat what I wrote in my last post. The rolling swells came
> straight at me. I was perpendicular to them. As David shouted "row," I stood
> up on the stretcher and pulled with everything I had, and the bow went
> under. The second stroke the bow came up, planed, and I was flying.
>
> For sure I am not the bodysurfer you are. But I did grow up a bit in Long
> Beach. We lived on Ocean Blvd right across from the Beach, and I went
> swimming every day and spent a lot of time body surfing. So I know what it
> feels like to surf a wave. And for sure my twenty-seven foot long, 30 lbs
> heavy, 10 inch wide Carl Douglas was out in front moving smoothly, in fact
> moving more smoothly than I was ever able to move my old Mass 24.
>
> Cordially,
>
> Charles

How fast are we talking about here? A bit faster than Rowing, or far
faster than the fastest rowing? Also, what height of wave? I've been
able to catch a few "wakeboarder" wakes (maybe 2ft.) in a Maas 24 on
our lake, and it was faster than I can row a 1x, and of course without
any additional input. Go ahead and lay back on the deck and you can
look forward, it's quite a rush. unfortunately I couldn't get the
ride to last very long, maybe 50m or so.

- Paul Smith

sully · Joined: 17 Feb 2008 Posts: 4

On Feb 19, 7:39 pm, "Charles Carroll"
wrote:
> Hello Mike,
>
> You raise an interesting question.
>
> I have read much praise of the all wood shells that George Pocock built. I
> am completely ready to concede that they were beautiful to look at,
> magnificent in fact, and as fast and rugged as anything made in their day.
> But can an all wood shell match the durability and toughness of the
> composite shells that Carl currently is building?
>
> I am not a materials engineer. All I have to go on is what I have read about
> Carl's shells. Thus all I can offer is to repeat what someone else has said.

Pocock was an outstanding single, but no way is it as sturdy as one
of Carl's boats or some others. The CD hull is far better I think,
indeed
so was the Stampfli hull years back.

As far as beauty goes, it's simply impressive to look through the
translucent decks of a wood shell to see the struts and cross members,
and see the different types of woods used for different purposes.
The
engineering of modern boats and materials make them stiffer and more
sturdy boats, but marginally they aren't a lot lighter or faster.

>
> But I can say from firsthand experience that the Carl Douglas I scull is
> surprisingly durable and tough. I use the word "surprisingly" because I
> expected a lot, and got so much more than I expected.
>
> What I did not expect is that the Carl Douglas would handle to water as well
> as it does. I must tell you I am really pleased with it.
>
> But I can't compare it to the hulls of a surfski or a Pocock Trainer. I don't
> even know what these hulls look like.
>
> All I can do is repeat what I wrote in my last post. The rolling swells came
> straight at me. I was perpendicular to them. As David shouted "row," I stood
> up on the stretcher and pulled with everything I had, and the bow went
> under. The second stroke the bow came up, planed, and I was flying.
>
> For sure I am not the bodysurfer you are. But I did grow up a bit in Long
> Beach. We lived on Ocean Blvd right across from the Beach, and I went
> swimming every day and spent a lot of time body surfing. So I know what it
> feels like to surf a wave. And for sure my twenty-seven foot long, 30 lbs
> heavy, 10 inch wide Carl Douglas was out in front moving smoothly, in fact
> moving more smoothly than I was ever able to move my old Mass 24.

Got to love it!

Mike

Charles Carroll · Joined: 18 Aug 2007 Posts: 114

Hello Paul,

I can't believe it. The knowledge I was looking for was right underneath my
nose this whole time. Here is OWRC's webpage on the subject of waves:

http://owrc.com/waves/waves.html

Next time I find myself in rolling swells you can bet I am going to test
David's advice and be "more aggressive in leaning onto the wave." The least
of my worries is the Mary Elizabeth Stone. Carl builds strong, tough shells.
As Carl once put it to me, "Charles, you can row any water in which you can
stay in the boat."

Now for your questions: My guest best that the rolling waves had a height of
2 to 3 feet and a length of 20 to 30 meters apart. But this is only a guess.
I could be very far off.

I want to stress that these were a series of rolling waves. There was no
crest and certainly no curl. The water, except for these rollers, looked
almost glassy flat. I know of a couple of scullers who absolutely hate water
like this. They prefer "washing machine" chop to these long, rolling waves.

The day I am talking about these waves were rolling a relatively short
distance, maybe a few hundred meters at the most. I wish I could tell you
how fast the waves were moving, but I have no idea. I got out in front of
the wave and just kept sculling. I didn't try to get ahead. Mostly I just
tried to stay in front and let the wave move me. I don't know if I even went
a hundred meters, but it was a nice ride.

My sculling partner, David Lay, is a real expert when it comes to catching
these rides. I have seen him in the right water catch the ride from just
before Cone Rock all the way to the number 10 channel marker, a distance of
2.77km according to the Garmin Forerunner 305. But catching a ride on
rolling waves for this distance is unusual.

I might mention that it is very disconcerting to have David Lay for a
partner. One minute we are together side by side, the next I am struggling
to stay in the shell and keep moving, while he is about 100 meters ahead of
me and flying.

I also should probably mention that David can move a small boat over water
more adroitly than almost anyone else that I know. He is a very experienced
sailor. And by that I mean he has crossed the Pacific singlehandedly three
times, twice from San Francisco to Hawaii, and once from San Francisco to
China. So I listen to him, even when I don't immediately understand what he
is saying.

Lastly I should mention that several years ago when I first tried to catch a
ride on these rolling waves in my Maas 24, I almost came to grief. The bow,
instead of going over the water, went into the water. The stern came up. I
imagine that from a distance it looked as if I were trying to make my shell
dive down into the water. About halfway into the pull through the shell
actually began to shudder. I eased off the pressure immediately and
concentrated all my efforts into staying in the boat. I can tell you it felt
very weird.

But I am not blaming the Maas 24. I would, instead, call it "owner-operator
error." The reason I say this is that when I ordered a shell from Carl I
sold my 24 to David. And David rows my old 24 just fine in all kinds of
water.

Arrrrrgh!

Cordially,

Charles

Charles Carroll · Joined: 18 Aug 2007 Posts: 114

> Now for your questions: My guest best that the rolling waves had a height
> of 2 to 3 feet and a length of 20 to 30 meters apart. But this is only a
> guess. I could be very far off.

Paul -

It is bad enough to have written "my guest best" instead of "best guess."
But to have also written "20 to 30 meters apart" is outrageous. I meant to
write "20 to 30 feet apart," that is, roughly two thirds to a boat length
apart.

What can I say? It has just been one of those days!

Charles

Lipitor and sculling This is amusing: When I saw the ads I thought the overhead sculling shots were beautiful but that the technique was a bit splashy. I just figured the good Dr. J. was still learning. Too bad there isn't

Spy film uk and sculling... FAO Carl Douglas A couple of weeks ago late at night I saw a spy film about the cold war and unfortunately I didnt take the name of it. However the dastardly russian double agent and his heroic american counterpart (haha) were both from the same rowing cr

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.

Unaccompanied minors sculling....... Spotted on the Tideway at Barn Elms on Sunday morning, on an admittedly low and benign tide, two very novice scullers that looked about 13 years old from a school that rows. They were unaccompanied by any launch, coaching or otherwise, no one was discerna

Joe Burk sculling style there is an interestinng article on Row2k.com regarding Joe Burk (currently in hospital) with a breakdown of his unusual stroke style. Any RSR technical guru's care to comment...