Cambridge Rowing Shells Limited

[Stelph]

Was just interested to see what the rsr heavies thougth about this new
company setting up in the UK?

http://www.crsrowing.com/page.php?page=index

Interesting website, although no pricing as of yet, my brother tells me
that the designer of the hull shapes is the same guy who started the
ill fated 2KV, a Gunther Borutta.

Also, I am very confused by statements on the website where it says
that

" They are the first hull shape ever to unite maximum stability with
the smallest wetted surface area of any rowing boat. The result is the
minimal drag and maximum speed of any rowing boat."

How can they have the smallest wetted surfacebut maximum stability? im
no expert but surely the greater the wetted suface, the greater the
stability?

Some more statements: -
http://www.crsrowing.com/page.php?page=stable
"GB's shells are 30% to 50% more stable then any other hull shape."

http://www.crsrowing.com/page.php?page=fast
"GB's hull design minimises WSA by virtue of its unique shape, up to
over 9% compared to other boats (1% less WSA is usually equal to 1%
less drag)."

Comments?

[Ewoud Dronkert]

On 17 Nov 2006 03:48:00 -0800, Stelph wrote:
> How can they have the smallest wetted surfacebut maximum stability?

A spherical hull shape. AKA a coracle :)

--
E. Dronkert

[Stelph]

Ewoud Dronkert wrote:

> On 17 Nov 2006 03:48:00 -0800, Stelph wrote:
> > How can they have the smallest wetted surfacebut maximum stability?
>
> A spherical hull shape. AKA a coracle :)
>
> --
> E. Dronkert

Alright, ill rephrase it, how can they have the smallest wetted surface
but maximum stability and go fast?

[m***@gmail.com]

The 2 things are not mutually exclunding but I will be curious to know
the technology behind. I looked at some of the number on their website
and I can't really figure out how they achieve that.
See I don't like when people say we are "better" and don't explain
exactly how and why.

M


Stelph wrote:
> Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
>
> > On 17 Nov 2006 03:48:00 -0800, Stelph wrote:
> > > How can they have the smallest wetted surfacebut maximum stability?
> >
> > A spherical hull shape. AKA a coracle :)
> >
> > --
> > E. Dronkert
>
> Alright, ill rephrase it, how can they have the smallest wetted surface
> but maximum stability and go fast?

[z***@zekehoskin.com]

Stelph wrote:
> Was just interested to see what the rsr heavies thougth about this new
> company setting up in the UK?
>
> http://www.crsrowing.com/page.php?page=index
>
>> Comments?

I can't say anything about the shells themselves, but the web page
content is nonsense. "A true three-dimensional hydrofoil" - yeah,
right, it runs submerged and generates lift from its upper
surface.//Zeke

[Sarah F]

***@zekehoskin.com wrote:

> Stelph wrote:
> > Was just interested to see what the rsr heavies thougth about this new
> > company setting up in the UK?
> >
> > http://www.crsrowing.com/page.php?page=index
> >
> >> Comments?
>
> I can't say anything about the shells themselves, but the web page
> content is nonsense. "A true three-dimensional hydrofoil" - yeah,
> right, it runs submerged and generates lift from its upper
> surface.//Zeke

Ok, I'm not one of the RSR heavies, but I've seen one in the flesh and
I wouldn't have rowed in it - it didn't have any underseat buoyancy at
all - completely open, and with wing riggers, so lower sax boards (But
then again I'd just got access to a new Fillippi with underseat
buoyancy, so it wasn't an issue for me personally!). I can't speak for
the technical stuff as I really am not in a position to comment on
these sorts of things, but I do find the idea of sweeping statements
not backed up with facts a little concerning...

Just call it a gut reaction/feminine intuition - some boats make you
want to row in them when you look at them, this one just didn't for me!

Sarah

[r***@xpressbc.org.uk]

Sarah F wrote:
> ***@zekehoskin.com wrote:
>
> > Stelph wrote:
> > > Was just interested to see what the rsr heavies thougth about this new
> > > company setting up in the UK?
> > >
> > > http://www.crsrowing.com/page.php?page=index
> > >
> > >> Comments?
> >
> > I can't say anything about the shells themselves, but the web page
> > content is nonsense. "A true three-dimensional hydrofoil" - yeah,
> > right, it runs submerged and generates lift from its upper
> > surface.//Zeke
>
> Ok, I'm not one of the RSR heavies, but I've seen one in the flesh and
> I wouldn't have rowed in it - it didn't have any underseat buoyancy at
> all - completely open, and with wing riggers, so lower sax boards (But
> then again I'd just got access to a new Fillippi with underseat
> buoyancy, so it wasn't an issue for me personally!). I can't speak for
> the technical stuff as I really am not in a position to comment on
> these sorts of things, but I do find the idea of sweeping statements
> not backed up with facts a little concerning...
>
> Just call it a gut reaction/feminine intuition - some boats make you
> want to row in them when you look at them, this one just didn't for me!
>
> Sarah

Dear Sarah,

Your comment about the CRS 8 that you have seen :
"having no under seat buoyancy at all " is entirely correct
However the boat you have seen is NOT a production boat.

This shell is a proto type in which the rowing seat areas are only
glued in to make the hull ready to be rowed. This particular shell was
made as a prototype and was on loan from CRS in February 2006 for
trial tests.

We had for two years prior to February 2006 rowed a Janousek. On
trialling the CRS boat over two months we were consistently 9-10
seconds faster over a set piece : With the Janousek : 2.04 to 2.06
after changing to CRS prototype 1.54 to 1.57 Minutes - Time taken by
our coach!

We have been delighted by the stability and 'response' of this boat
that we arranged to purchase this prototype in July and we are just
going ahead to purchase a second new CRS 8, now out of the production
mould.

The prototype boat is racked in the CRA boathouse in Cambridge and is
there for all to inspect should they wish
I'm sure CRS would be delighted to show you a new boat and in
particular the water tight compartment areas


Richard Funnell - Captain X-Press BC 'Biggles' Crew

[a***@aol.com]

***@xpressbc.org.uk wrote:
> Sarah F wrote:
> > ***@zekehoskin.com wrote:
> >
> > > Stelph wrote:
> > > > Was just interested to see what the rsr heavies thougth about this new
> > > > company setting up in the UK?
> > > >
> > > > http://www.crsrowing.com/page.php?page=index
> > > >
> > > >> Comments?
> > >
> > > I can't say anything about the shells themselves, but the web page
> > > content is nonsense. "A true three-dimensional hydrofoil" - yeah,
> > > right, it runs submerged and generates lift from its upper
> > > surface.//Zeke
> >
> > Ok, I'm not one of the RSR heavies, but I've seen one in the flesh and
> > I wouldn't have rowed in it - it didn't have any underseat buoyancy at
> > all - completely open, and with wing riggers, so lower sax boards (But
> > then again I'd just got access to a new Fillippi with underseat
> > buoyancy, so it wasn't an issue for me personally!). I can't speak for
> > the technical stuff as I really am not in a position to comment on
> > these sorts of things, but I do find the idea of sweeping statements
> > not backed up with facts a little concerning...
> >
> > Just call it a gut reaction/feminine intuition - some boats make you
> > want to row in them when you look at them, this one just didn't for me!
> >
> > Sarah
>
> Dear Sarah,
>
> Your comment about the CRS 8 that you have seen :
> "having no under seat buoyancy at all " is entirely correct
> However the boat you have seen is NOT a production boat.
>
> This shell is a proto type in which the rowing seat areas are only
> glued in to make the hull ready to be rowed. This particular shell was
> made as a prototype and was on loan from CRS in February 2006 for
> trial tests.
>
> We had for two years prior to February 2006 rowed a Janousek. On
> trialling the CRS boat over two months we were consistently 9-10
> seconds faster over a set piece : With the Janousek : 2.04 to 2.06
> after changing to CRS prototype 1.54 to 1.57 Minutes - Time taken by
> our coach!
>
> We have been delighted by the stability and 'response' of this boat
> that we arranged to purchase this prototype in July and we are just
> going ahead to purchase a second new CRS 8, now out of the production
> mould.
>
> The prototype boat is racked in the CRA boathouse in Cambridge and is
> there for all to inspect should they wish
> I'm sure CRS would be delighted to show you a new boat and in
> particular the water tight compartment areas
>
>
> Richard Funnell - Captain X-Press BC 'Biggles' Crew

I find this exceptionally hard to believe quite frankly.

[Jonathan Anderson]

***@aol.com wrote:
> I find this exceptionally hard to believe quite frankly.

I bet it is true - that they are going quicker in the boat. It could
also be down to a number of other factors: wind speed + direction, crew
composition, how fit they are feeling, stream strength, just better
rowers now etc.

If they enjoy rowing in the boat then they are satisfied customers and
CRS have done their job.

Jon
--
Durge: ***@durge.org http://users.durge.org/~jon/
OnStream: ***@rowing.org.uk http://www.rowing.org.uk/

[ All views expressed are personal unless otherwise stated ]

[n***@aol.com]

***@aol.com wrote:
> ***@xpressbc.org.uk wrote:
> >
> > We had for two years prior to February 2006 rowed a Janousek. On
> > trialling the CRS boat over two months we were consistently 9-10
> > seconds faster over a set piece : With the Janousek : 2.04 to 2.06
> > after changing to CRS prototype 1.54 to 1.57 Minutes - Time taken by
> > our coach!
> >
>
> I find this exceptionally hard to believe quite frankly.

It is hard to believe, but it's reminiscent of the sort of thing that
was being said when people were working out whether to switch to big
blades in the early nineties.
I distinctly remember a women's crew from Oxford (not sure I can
remember the name, so I won't guess) who claimed in a letter to Regatta
that with them they were 5-10 seconds faster over 500 metres. I'm sure
they genuinely believed it - like X-Press, they had no axe to grind -
but in Torpids they didn't by any means cut the swathe through the
crews above them you'd expect if it had really been the case.

[Jonathan Anderson]

***@aol.com wrote:
> It is hard to believe, but it's reminiscent of the sort of thing that
> was being said when people were working out whether to switch to big
> blades in the early nineties.
> I distinctly remember a women's crew from Oxford (not sure I can
> remember the name, so I won't guess) who claimed in a letter to Regatta
> that with them they were 5-10 seconds faster over 500 metres. I'm sure
> they genuinely believed it - like X-Press, they had no axe to grind -
> but in Torpids they didn't by any means cut the swathe through the
> crews above them you'd expect if it had really been the case.

Wasn't the standard claim from C2 that they were worth 1 second over 1000m?

Jon
--
Durge: ***@durge.org http://users.durge.org/~jon/
OnStream: ***@rowing.org.uk http://www.rowing.org.uk/

[ All views expressed are personal unless otherwise stated ]

[p***@hotmail.com]

Jonathan Anderson wrote:
> ***@aol.com wrote:
> > It is hard to believe, but it's reminiscent of the sort of thing that
> > was being said when people were working out whether to switch to big
> > blades in the early nineties.
> > I distinctly remember a women's crew from Oxford (not sure I can
> > remember the name, so I won't guess) who claimed in a letter to Regatta
> > that with them they were 5-10 seconds faster over 500 metres. I'm sure
> > they genuinely believed it - like X-Press, they had no axe to grind -
> > but in Torpids they didn't by any means cut the swathe through the
> > crews above them you'd expect if it had really been the case.
>
> Wasn't the standard claim from C2 that they were worth 1 second over 1000m?
>
> Jon
> --
> Durge: ***@durge.org http://users.durge.org/~jon/
> OnStream: ***@rowing.org.uk http://www.rowing.org.uk/
>
> [ All views expressed are personal unless otherwise stated ]

No, it was a "2% increase in rowing speed" (taken from the just out C2
2006 fall update newsletter). Also mentioned was that there was talk
of banning them as an unfair advantage, but this was squelched by C2
making the Big Blade available to it's international Dealers.

Of course now we have the "Fat Smoothie", which seems a more apt
description of some rowers rather than a piece of equipment. [;o)

- Paul Smith

[Carl]

***@hotmail.com wrote:
> Jonathan Anderson wrote:
>
>>***@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>>It is hard to believe, but it's reminiscent of the sort of thing that
>>>was being said when people were working out whether to switch to big
>>>blades in the early nineties.
>>>I distinctly remember a women's crew from Oxford (not sure I can
>>>remember the name, so I won't guess) who claimed in a letter to Regatta
>>>that with them they were 5-10 seconds faster over 500 metres. I'm sure
>>>they genuinely believed it - like X-Press, they had no axe to grind -
>>>but in Torpids they didn't by any means cut the swathe through the
>>>crews above them you'd expect if it had really been the case.
>>
>>Wasn't the standard claim from C2 that they were worth 1 second over 1000m?
>>
>>Jon
>>--
>>Durge: ***@durge.org http://users.durge.org/~jon/
>>OnStream: ***@rowing.org.uk http://www.rowing.org.uk/
>>
>> [ All views expressed are personal unless otherwise stated ]
>
>
> No, it was a "2% increase in rowing speed" (taken from the just out C2
> 2006 fall update newsletter). Also mentioned was that there was talk
> of banning them as an unfair advantage, but this was squelched by C2
> making the Big Blade available to it's international Dealers.
>
> Of course now we have the "Fat Smoothie", which seems a more apt
> description of some rowers rather than a piece of equipment. [;o)
>
> - Paul Smith
>

That would mean an advantage of ~5 lengths in an 8+, or ~10 lengths in a
1x. Even if we discount any improvements in human performance or
technique, have we seen such improvements?

Put another way, if we say that the propulsive efficiency of the
oar/water system, expressed in a percentage as useful work rate divided
by total rate of work input, is typically ~65%, there would have to be
an increase in useful work of over 6.1%, increasing the propulsive
efficiency to ~69%. That would seem to imply ~4% increase in duration
of the immersed part of the stroke. Has that been noticed?

BTW, relative to what was that "2% increase in rowing speed"? Which
apples are we comparing with which? Seems, like the supposed
performance enhancing effects of a certain blade end protector, to be an
element of wishful thinking.

Furthermore: I have in my possession a pair of hatchet sculls, from the
top edge of the blade on one of which, starting from the blade tip, I
deliberately cut away a strip measuring 1" x 6" (25mm x 150mm). If
blade design was as fine an art as we are told it is, you'd think that
such mutilation would have a noticeable effect. None of the many who
have tested that pair of blades can detect the slightest difference
between them in use - despite their initial trepidation in even going
afloat with such tools. I am led to suspect that blade design is still
largely about kidology.

Cheers -
Carl

PS Paul - seats are imminent!
C
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
Email: ***@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: [phone] Fax: -466550
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)

[p***@hotmail.com]

Carl wrote:
> ***@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Jonathan Anderson wrote:
> >
> >>***@aol.com wrote:
> >>
> >>>It is hard to believe, but it's reminiscent of the sort of thing that
> >>>was being said when people were working out whether to switch to big
> >>>blades in the early nineties.
> >>>I distinctly remember a women's crew from Oxford (not sure I can
> >>>remember the name, so I won't guess) who claimed in a letter to Regatta
> >>>that with them they were 5-10 seconds faster over 500 metres. I'm sure
> >>>they genuinely believed it - like X-Press, they had no axe to grind -
> >>>but in Torpids they didn't by any means cut the swathe through the
> >>>crews above them you'd expect if it had really been the case.
> >>
> >>Wasn't the standard claim from C2 that they were worth 1 second over 1000m?
> >>
> >>Jon
> >>--
> >>Durge: ***@durge.org http://users.durge.org/~jon/
> >>OnStream: ***@rowing.org.uk http://www.rowing.org.uk/
> >>
> >> [ All views expressed are personal unless otherwise stated ]
> >
> >
> > No, it was a "2% increase in rowing speed" (taken from the just out C2
> > 2006 fall update newsletter). Also mentioned was that there was talk
> > of banning them as an unfair advantage, but this was squelched by C2
> > making the Big Blade available to it's international Dealers.
> >
> > Of course now we have the "Fat Smoothie", which seems a more apt
> > description of some rowers rather than a piece of equipment. [;o)
> >
> > - Paul Smith
> >
>
> That would mean an advantage of ~5 lengths in an 8+, or ~10 lengths in a
> 1x. Even if we discount any improvements in human performance or
> technique, have we seen such improvements?

Not that I'm aware of, aside from all the claims regarding the Sliding
rigger. (That's supposed to be a joke, but if someone does have such
evidence I'd like to know about it.)

> Put another way, if we say that the propulsive efficiency of the
> oar/water system, expressed in a percentage as useful work rate divided
> by total rate of work input, is typically ~65%, there would have to be
> an increase in useful work of over 6.1%, increasing the propulsive
> efficiency to ~69%. That would seem to imply ~4% increase in duration
> of the immersed part of the stroke. Has that been noticed?

This could in fact be the case, though it's more like they went from a
shortish impulse to a less shortish impulse because their technique was
ill suited to capitalizing on the lift portion of the drive and more on
the drag portion.

> BTW, relative to what was that "2% increase in rowing speed"? Which
> apples are we comparing with which? Seems, like the supposed
> performance enhancing effects of a certain blade end protector, to be an
> element of wishful thinking.

Don't shoot at the messenger. I believe that the C2 blade designs are
tested by Peter and Dick using a standard protocol they devised for
such things. It is detailed on their website if anyone wants to look.
Of course that means it is subject to their own technical
peculiarities.

> Furthermore: I have in my possession a pair of hatchet sculls, from the
> top edge of the blade on one of which, starting from the blade tip, I
> deliberately cut away a strip measuring 1" x 6" (25mm x 150mm). If
> blade design was as fine an art as we are told it is, you'd think that
> such mutilation would have a noticeable effect. None of the many who
> have tested that pair of blades can detect the slightest difference
> between them in use - despite their initial trepidation in even going
> afloat with such tools. I am led to suspect that blade design is still
> largely about kidology.

We've got quite a number of similarly modified blades, albeit less
precisely done as an ongoing "sanding down" process that mostly effects
the 'dock side' (Starboard in our clubs case) blades. Some very
interesting shapes have emerged.

>
> Cheers -
> Carl
>
> PS Paul - seats are imminent!
> C

Great news! I will wake early and attempt to ring you up.

- Paul

[Rower123]

I heard the 2% speed increase thing from C2 people as far back as mid
2002.

If you are daft enough to believe such proclaimations, you'll probably
be suckered in to other scams. I hope no-one actually takes the blade
propaganda seriously.

As long as in good repair and not too old, I think the blade will be a
matter of preferance with no one design definitively outperforming the
other.

Carl wrote:
> ***@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Jonathan Anderson wrote:
> >
> >>***@aol.com wrote:
> >>
> >>>It is hard to believe, but it's reminiscent of the sort of thing that
> >>>was being said when people were working out whether to switch to big
> >>>blades in the early nineties.
> >>>I distinctly remember a women's crew from Oxford (not sure I can
> >>>remember the name, so I won't guess) who claimed in a letter to Regatta
> >>>that with them they were 5-10 seconds faster over 500 metres. I'm sure
> >>>they genuinely believed it - like X-Press, they had no axe to grind -
> >>>but in Torpids they didn't by any means cut the swathe through the
> >>>crews above them you'd expect if it had really been the case.
> >>
> >>Wasn't the standard claim from C2 that they were worth 1 second over 1000m?
> >>
> >>Jon
> >>--
> >>Durge: ***@durge.org http://users.durge.org/~jon/
> >>OnStream: ***@rowing.org.uk http://www.rowing.org.uk/
> >>
> >> [ All views expressed are personal unless otherwise stated ]
> >
> >
> > No, it was a "2% increase in rowing speed" (taken from the just out C2
> > 2006 fall update newsletter). Also mentioned was that there was talk
> > of banning them as an unfair advantage, but this was squelched by C2
> > making the Big Blade available to it's international Dealers.
> >
> > Of course now we have the "Fat Smoothie", which seems a more apt
> > description of some rowers rather than a piece of equipment. [;o)
> >
> > - Paul Smith
> >
>
> That would mean an advantage of ~5 lengths in an 8+, or ~10 lengths in a
> 1x. Even if we discount any improvements in human performance or
> technique, have we seen such improvements?
>
> Put another way, if we say that the propulsive efficiency of the
> oar/water system, expressed in a percentage as useful work rate divided
> by total rate of work input, is typically ~65%, there would have to be
> an increase in useful work of over 6.1%, increasing the propulsive
> efficiency to ~69%. That would seem to imply ~4% increase in duration
> of the immersed part of the stroke. Has that been noticed?
>
> BTW, relative to what was that "2% increase in rowing speed"? Which
> apples are we comparing with which? Seems, like the supposed
> performance enhancing effects of a certain blade end protector, to be an
> element of wishful thinking.
>
> Furthermore: I have in my possession a pair of hatchet sculls, from the
> top edge of the blade on one of which, starting from the blade tip, I
> deliberately cut away a strip measuring 1" x 6" (25mm x 150mm). If
> blade design was as fine an art as we are told it is, you'd think that
> such mutilation would have a noticeable effect. None of the many who
> have tested that pair of blades can detect the slightest difference
> between them in use - despite their initial trepidation in even going
> afloat with such tools. I am led to suspect that blade design is still
> largely about kidology.
>
> Cheers -
> Carl
>
> PS Paul - seats are imminent!
> C
> --
> Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
> Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
> Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
> Email: ***@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: [phone] Fax: -466550
> URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)

[p***@hotmail.com]

Rower123 wrote:
> I heard the 2% speed increase thing from C2 people as far back as mid
> 2002.
>
> If you are daft enough to believe such proclaimations, you'll probably
> be suckered in to other scams. I hope no-one actually takes the blade
> propaganda seriously.
>
> As long as in good repair and not too old, I think the blade will be a
> matter of preferance with no one design definitively outperforming the
> other.
>

Well, the source I'm quoting it from has it's own date of 1991, so
better late than never. [;o)

The other very old saying that may well apply, "It's the horse, not the
chariot."

I've liked characteristics of various blade designs, however old habits
must die very hard, because nothing feels more like what I want it to
than my macons. If it weren't for the quite high cost and what I would
likely make into a high maintenance obligation, I'd probably been quite
happy with a set of wooden sculls from Pocock, which have recently
become extinct as far as I'm aware. The relatively cheap and durable
composites have reduced what I saw as art to mere working tools,
certainly maintained well, but less emmotional attachment.

- Paul Smith

[Pete]

Carl wrote:
> Furthermore: I have in my possession a pair of hatchet sculls, from the
> top edge of the blade on one of which, starting from the blade tip, I
> deliberately cut away a strip measuring 1" x 6" (25mm x 150mm). If
> blade design was as fine an art as we are told it is, you'd think that
> such mutilation would have a noticeable effect. None of the many who
> have tested that pair of blades can detect the slightest difference
> between them in use - despite their initial trepidation in even going
> afloat with such tools. I am led to suspect that blade design is still
> largely about kidology.

My memory of fluid dynamics is slightly dodgy by now, so correct me if
I'm wrong, but IIRC:

If you have any two blade designs, then during the portion of the
stroke where the sculler is connected (i.e. lift effect is significant)
there really shouldn't be all that much difference in efficiency,
although they may move at slightly different speeds (like if one blade
is simply geared heavier than the other) relative to the scull. What
will be different is when the blade will connect, or stay connected.

I'd guess that if you put someone out in a scull on a dead flat lake
with your modified blades, and had them scull with their eyes closed
for a bit, you'd probably see a slightly curved path, more so if the
sculler was technically duff but strong (lots of ripping the blades
through). But it would be a tiny effect compared to, say, sculling on
the Thames where one blade is in the stream and the other is not - and
you compensate for the turning effect that produces without even
noticing most of the time.

Pete

[Carl Douglas]

Pete wrote:
> Carl wrote:
>
>>Furthermore: I have in my possession a pair of hatchet sculls, from the
>>top edge of the blade on one of which, starting from the blade tip, I
>>deliberately cut away a strip measuring 1" x 6" (25mm x 150mm). If
>>blade design was as fine an art as we are told it is, you'd think that
>>such mutilation would have a noticeable effect. None of the many who
>>have tested that pair of blades can detect the slightest difference
>>between them in use - despite their initial trepidation in even going
>>afloat with such tools. I am led to suspect that blade design is still
>>largely about kidology.
>
>
> My memory of fluid dynamics is slightly dodgy by now, so correct me if
> I'm wrong, but IIRC:
>
> If you have any two blade designs, then during the portion of the
> stroke where the sculler is connected (i.e. lift effect is significant)
> there really shouldn't be all that much difference in efficiency,
> although they may move at slightly different speeds (like if one blade
> is simply geared heavier than the other) relative to the scull. What
> will be different is when the blade will connect, or stay connected.
>
> I'd guess that if you put someone out in a scull on a dead flat lake
> with your modified blades, and had them scull with their eyes closed
> for a bit, you'd probably see a slightly curved path, more so if the
> sculler was technically duff but strong (lots of ripping the blades
> through). But it would be a tiny effect compared to, say, sculling on
> the Thames where one blade is in the stream and the other is not - and
> you compensate for the turning effect that produces without even
> noticing most of the time.
>
> Pete
>

Let's split the stroke into 3 roughly-equal phases, starting from the
catch, & try (feebly) to keep things simple?

1. Phase 1, catch section - flow is from tip to root of blade:
Lift - as for any lifting foil, whether wing, sail, keel, etc. - is
exactly equal to load on blade.
Drag - a function of blade shape & area, position in arc, boat speed,
degree of aeration of water.
Angle of attack, or slip angle - taken as net instantaneous direction
of motion of blade through water WRT shaft axis - a function of blade
shape & area, degree of aeration, load, depth of immersion, position in arc.
Both drag & slip angle will affect the propulsive efficiency. Without
drag & slip there'd be 100% efficiency. Drag is aligned along the shaft
axis, resolves into a force opposing boat motion & thus diminishes
efficiency. Slip is work done (force x distance) to move the blade
through the water, not work done to move the boat ditto, so it too
reduces efficiency. With both slip & drag affected by design, load &
technique, efficiency in phase 1 is a variable & never approaches 100%.

2. Phase 2, mid stroke section - flow largely perpendicular to blade:
As the blade swings closer to the perpendicular the tip-root water flow
declines. This kills lift, i.e. the blade stalls - its angle of attack
approaches 90 degrees & it falls face-first through the water - a sudden
rise in slip.
Onset of stall depends on design, load & depth of immersion. Depth
is important, contrary to popular notions, because the face pressure on
the blade is always far less than the tension in the water against the
back of the blade. That tension pulls downwards the surface of the
water behind the blade, creating a depression. If that depression makes
contact with the back of the blade it progressively detaches the water
from that surface, generating an air-filled hole which can sustain no
tension. So the blade slips much more than before. If you bury deeper,
that depression can't reach the blade surface, so the tension is
sustained & slip is much reduced.
The energy losses in this phase are due to the physical slip of blade
through water - work lost = load x distance slipped - & manifests itself
in that turbulent mess called the puddle.
Unfortunately, rowers are told a) don't row deep & b) the optimum
place to pull hardest is the mid-stroke. Both instructions are quite wrong.
In this phase the desired blade characteristics are that it be large
in area, small in perimeter, not too long, lightly-loaded & well-buried.
There is much scope to reduce losses & raise what has to be the low
efficiency of this phase changing design & technique. Where the extra
blade area is concentrated is also important.

3. Pase 3, towards the finish - flow builds up to go from root to tip
(the opposite to phase 1). This phase encompasses a progressive return
to the features described for Phase 1.

I hope that's enough to chew on & to explain why blade design & rowing
technique really can & do affect propulsive efficiency. It is a sorely
neglected area.

I don't think you have any grounds to suppose that the potential
differences are slight, nor that an actual rowing environment diminishes
them. What limits the potential for improvement is the rower's belief
that all blades should feel the same in the water. That view is
nonsense, since a more efficient blade or stroke must take longer to
complete a given arc & will, in the very inexact terms used by rowers,
feel heavier as a result. Of course, what is happening is that the
rower still wants the blade to complete the stroke in the same time ass
before, so pulls harder to achieve the impossible & then complains, "It
is too heavy". If you want to use more efficient blades to go faster,
then you have to accept that your technique & physical responses must
adapt. Do not try to adapt the equipment to your technique.

Cheers -
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
Email: ***@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: [phone] Fax: -466550
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)

[Pete]

Carl Douglas wrote:
> Unfortunately, rowers are told a) don't row deep & b) the optimum
> place to pull hardest is the mid-stroke.

IMO, there is something to 'don't row deep' in so far as you need to
extract the blade cleanly at the finish, and this means the blade has
to be not too deep approaching the finish. Obviously the rest of the
stroke depends on your technique.

As far as 'pull hardest' goes, any time you start thinking that way you
tend to rip the blades through the water and then decelerate them into
the finish, which means you go slowly.

Snipped details - thanks.

> I don't think you have any grounds to suppose that the potential
> differences are slight, nor that an actual rowing environment diminishes
> them. What limits the potential for improvement is the rower's belief
> that all blades should feel the same in the water. That view is
> nonsense, since a more efficient blade or stroke must take longer to
> complete a given arc & will, in the very inexact terms used by rowers,
> feel heavier as a result. Of course, what is happening is that the
> rower still wants the blade to complete the stroke in the same time ass
> before, so pulls harder to achieve the impossible & then complains, "It
> is too heavy". If you want to use more efficient blades to go faster,
> then you have to accept that your technique & physical responses must
> adapt. Do not try to adapt the equipment to your technique.

Yes: I think what I meant was not that blade design has reached
perfection but that I don't believe there is much difference in
efficiency between the two sculls you mentioned, although I strongly
suspect that there is enough difference to be measurable.

I'm not sure that there is really all that large a portion of the
stroke where the blade is purely slipping, and I think that practical
issues (like the way that people move naturally) actually make that
part of the stroke less relevant: the blade is, or should be, changing
angle quite rapidly through the second phase, and if you are pulling on
a handle whose acceleration suddenly increases the force you apply will
tend to drop. Even if you coach people to yank on the handle at that
point, it's quite hard to actually do it: and it isn't a good way to
row anyway.

Pete

[Jeremy Fagan]

There was one of CRS' boats being raced today in the Scullers' Head -
going off at number 5, with Ian Watson (who I think posts here as
gripper) rowing it. Looked like a very nice boat - better than I
remember 2kv being. It also looked to be moving very nicely through the
water - but then his boat usually does...

Not sure about the colour scheme :)

Jeremy

[Jeremy Fagan]

Jeremy Fagan wrote:
>
> There was one of CRS' boats being raced today in the Scullers' Head -
> going off at number 5, with Ian Watson (who I think posts here as
> gripper) rowing it. Looked like a very nice boat - better than I
> remember 2kv being. It also looked to be moving very nicely through the
> water - but then his boat usually does...
>
> Not sure about the colour scheme :)
>
> Jeremy

Apologies - I'm told they're brothers.

Jeremy

[Nick Suess]

"Jeremy Fagan" <***@mac.com> wrote in message
>
> Apologies - I'm told they're brothers.

Coming from you, I presume that means they had coarse habits.

[Gripper]

http://www.bigblade-photos.net/rowing/events/2006/shor06/byevent/displayimage.php?src=events&im=0071&offset=1

(To confirm I am his considerably slower Brother) :-)

Nick Suess wrote:

> "Jeremy Fagan" <***@mac.com> wrote in message
> >
> > Apologies - I'm told they're brothers.
>
> Coming from you, I presume that means they had coarse habits.

[Nick Suess]

"Carl" <***@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ekn1is$abr$1$***@news.demon.co.uk...

> Furthermore: I have in my possession a pair of hatchet sculls, from the
> top edge of the blade on one of which, starting from the blade tip, I
> deliberately cut away a strip measuring 1" x 6" (25mm x 150mm).

Furthermore (ain't that word grand?) it is now on record that this very same
pair of sculls propelled Carl (with but minor assistance from myself in the
bow seat of our double) at record-breaking speed over the 5km of the
Vechtrace just a couple of months ago.

[p***@hotmail.com]

Nick Suess wrote:
> "Carl" <***@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ekn1is$abr$1$***@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> > Furthermore: I have in my possession a pair of hatchet sculls, from the
> > top edge of the blade on one of which, starting from the blade tip, I
> > deliberately cut away a strip measuring 1" x 6" (25mm x 150mm).
>
> Furthermore (ain't that word grand?) it is now on record that this very same
> pair of sculls propelled Carl (with but minor assistance from myself in the
> bow seat of our double) at record-breaking speed over the 5km of the
> Vechtrace just a couple of months ago.

Carl related a similar version of that story to me on the phone
yesterday [;o)

- Paul Smith

[Carl]

***@hotmail.com wrote:
> Nick Suess wrote:
>
>>"Carl" <***@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:ekn1is$abr$1$***@news.demon.co.uk...
>>
>>
>>>Furthermore: I have in my possession a pair of hatchet sculls, from the
>>>top edge of the blade on one of which, starting from the blade tip, I
>>>deliberately cut away a strip measuring 1" x 6" (25mm x 150mm).
>>
>>Furthermore (ain't that word grand?) it is now on record that this very same
>>pair of sculls propelled Carl (with but minor assistance from myself in the
>>bow seat of our double) at record-breaking speed over the 5km of the
>>Vechtrace just a couple of months ago.
>
>
> Carl related a similar version of that story to me on the phone
> yesterday [;o)
>
> - Paul Smith
>

However, & for complete accuracy & honesty, it should be noted that the
speed achieved was record-breakingly _slow_.

:)
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
Email: ***@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: [phone] Fax: -466550
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)

[Jeremy Fagan]

Stelph wrote:
> Was just interested to see what the rsr heavies thougth about this new
> company setting up in the UK?
>
> http://www.crsrowing.com/page.php?page=index
>
> Interesting website, although no pricing as of yet, my brother tells me
> that the designer of the hull shapes is the same guy who started the
> ill fated 2KV, a Gunther Borutta.
>
> Also, I am very confused by statements on the website where it says
> that
>
> " They are the first hull shape ever to unite maximum stability with
> the smallest wetted surface area of any rowing boat. The result is the
> minimal drag and maximum speed of any rowing boat."
>
> How can they have the smallest wetted surfacebut maximum stability? im
> no expert but surely the greater the wetted suface, the greater the
> stability?
>
> Some more statements: -
> http://www.crsrowing.com/page.php?page=stable
> "GB's shells are 30% to 50% more stable then any other hull shape."
>
> http://www.crsrowing.com/page.php?page=fast
> "GB's hull design minimises WSA by virtue of its unique shape, up to
> over 9% compared to other boats (1% less WSA is usually equal to 1%
> less drag)."
>
> Comments?
>
Sounds like the same kind of garbage spouted the last two times he
tried to set up a boat building company. 5 year guarantees, and bankrupt
in 2.. No end of problems with over-complicated rudders, etc.

I'm not a scientist, but this has the faint whiff of fresh manure
sprinkled with a light covering of fairydust.

Jeremy

[Carl Douglas]

Jeremy Fagan wrote:
> Stelph wrote:
>
>> Was just interested to see what the rsr heavies thougth about this new
>> company setting up in the UK?
>>
>> http://www.crsrowing.com/page.php?page=index
>>
>> Interesting website, although no pricing as of yet, my brother tells me
>> that the designer of the hull shapes is the same guy who started the
>> ill fated 2KV, a Gunther Borutta.
>>
>> Also, I am very confused by statements on the website where it says
>> that
>>
>> " They are the first hull shape ever to unite maximum stability with
>> the smallest wetted surface area of any rowing boat. The result is the
>> minimal drag and maximum speed of any rowing boat."
>>
>> How can they have the smallest wetted surfacebut maximum stability? im
>> no expert but surely the greater the wetted suface, the greater the
>> stability?
>>
>> Some more statements: -
>> http://www.crsrowing.com/page.php?page=stable
>> "GB's shells are 30% to 50% more stable then any other hull shape."
>>
>> http://www.crsrowing.com/page.php?page=fast
>> "GB's hull design minimises WSA by virtue of its unique shape, up to
>> over 9% compared to other boats (1% less WSA is usually equal to 1%
>> less drag)."
>>
>> Comments?
>>
> Sounds like the same kind of garbage spouted the last two times he
> tried to set up a boat building company. 5 year guarantees, and bankrupt
> in 2.. No end of problems with over-complicated rudders, etc.
>
> I'm not a scientist, but this has the faint whiff of fresh manure
> sprinkled with a light covering of fairydust.
>
> Jeremy

Let's delve back into history to taste again the flood of fertilizer
upon which that that previous incarnation was floated:

http://web.archive.org/web/20000818150614/http://www.2kvelocity.com/

The similarities are apparent. Who will lose their coat to fund it this
time?

Carl


--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
Email: ***@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: [phone] Fax: -466550
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)

[Sarah F]

>
> Let's delve back into history to taste again the flood of fertilizer
> upon which that that previous incarnation was floated:
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/20000818150614/http://www.2kvelocity.com/
>
> The similarities are apparent. Who will lose their coat to fund it this
> time?
>
> Carl
>

Don't you just love that web time travel machine?! ;)

Sarah

[Jeremy Fagan]

Carl Douglas wrote:
> Jeremy Fagan wrote:
>

>> Sounds like the same kind of garbage spouted the last two times he
>> tried to set up a boat building company. 5 year guarantees, and
>> bankrupt in 2.. No end of problems with over-complicated rudders, etc.
>>
>> I'm not a scientist, but this has the faint whiff of fresh manure
>> sprinkled with a light covering of fairydust.
>>
>> Jeremy
>
>
> Let's delve back into history to taste again the flood of fertilizer
> upon which that that previous incarnation was floated:
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/20000818150614/http://www.2kvelocity.com/
>
> The similarities are apparent. Who will lose their coat to fund it this
> time?
>
> Carl
>
>
>
> --
> Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
> Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
> Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
> Email: ***@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: [phone] Fax: -466550
> URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)

First, it was the 'Evolution', which brand name Sims had started using
the previous year. Then, it was the 'RX2', which was at least marginally
different to the 'AX2' that Aylings had been selling for a number of
years. Now, it's 'CRS Rowing' - not a million years from 'CDRS'..

Am I being paranoid? Will an 'Empatcher' be next?

Jeremy

[Carl]

Jeremy Fagan wrote:

>
> First, it was the 'Evolution', which brand name Sims had started using
> the previous year. Then, it was the 'RX2', which was at least marginally
> different to the 'AX2' that Aylings had been selling for a number of
> years. Now, it's 'CRS Rowing' - not a million years from 'CDRS'..
>

Not a million years from CDRS in name, maybe. But not - to even the
remotest degree - similar to CDRS in substance.

I recall DuPont being less than amused by the nonsensical bits on that
2KV website which slagged off Kevlar(TM). Just one of the several ways
in which that bunch of tyros acted big by talking total garbage about
highly-regarded products of long standing.

> Am I being paranoid? Will an 'Empatcher' be next?
>

You, paranoid, Jeremy? Mind you, that doesn't mean they're not out to
get you....
;)

Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
Email: ***@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: [phone] Fax: -466550
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)

[s***@btinternet.com]

Jeremy, had you ever had a look for this Stelph boats?

They look like 'Empatcher'! ! ! ! ! Or?

Only a bit the supermarket version?

Are you paranoid?

Simon

Jeremy Fagan wrote:
> Carl Douglas wrote:
> > Jeremy Fagan wrote:
> >
>
> >> Sounds like the same kind of garbage spouted the last two times he
> >> tried to set up a boat building company. 5 year guarantees, and
> >> bankrupt in 2.. No end of problems with over-complicated rudders, etc.
> >>
> >> I'm not a scientist, but this has the faint whiff of fresh manure
> >> sprinkled with a light covering of fairydust.
> >>
> >> Jeremy
> >
> >
> > Let's delve back into history to taste again the flood of fertilizer
> > upon which that that previous incarnation was floated:
> >
> > http://web.archive.org/web/20000818150614/http://www.2kvelocity.com/
> >
> > The similarities are apparent. Who will lose their coat to fund it this
> > time?
> >
> > Carl
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
> > Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
> > Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
> > Email: ***@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: [phone] Fax: -466550
> > URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)
>
> First, it was the 'Evolution', which brand name Sims had started using
> the previous year. Then, it was the 'RX2', which was at least marginally
> different to the 'AX2' that Aylings had been selling for a number of
> years. Now, it's 'CRS Rowing' - not a million years from 'CDRS'..
>
> Am I being paranoid? Will an 'Empatcher' be next?
>
> Jeremy

[Jeremy Fagan]

***@btinternet.com wrote:
> Jeremy, had you ever had a look for this Stelph boats?
>
> They look like 'Empatcher'! ! ! ! ! Or?
>
> Only a bit the supermarket version?

But everyone knows that yellow boats are faster? Aren't they? I've rowed
in 2 Aylings 8s of similar vintage that were painted yellow to make them
go faster. A similar effect can of course be achieved by never washing
your boat..

>
> Are you paranoid?
>

The voices tell me I'm not.

Jeremy

[Jonny]

> The voices tell me I'm not.


Thank God for that. For a moment there I thought the voices were
telling you to conquer France.

[Gripper]

Jonny wrote:

> > The voices tell me I'm not.
>
>
> Thank God for that. For a moment there I thought the voices were
> telling you to conquer France.

[Gripper]

That last post was supposed to moan at you miserable RSR heavies for
knocking something youve not tried and to suggest that It is nice that
someone is at leat trying something different rather than just another
copy of a copy of a copy.



Gripper wrote:

> Jonny wrote:
>
> > > The voices tell me I'm not.
> >
> >
> > Thank God for that. For a moment there I thought the voices were
> > telling you to conquer France.

[Carl]

Gripper wrote:
> That last post was supposed to moan at you miserable RSR heavies for
> knocking something youve not tried and to suggest that It is nice that
> someone is at leat trying something different rather than just another
> copy of a copy of a copy.
>
>
>

It would be welcomed were it an original, & had the original outfit not
crashed & burned in a blaze of illfounded warranties & illicit slurs on
the products of well-regarded manufacturers.

The new website, while tamer than its direct predecessor (& wisely so),
is from the same source. This is a resuscitated version of the original
product. The hype reeks of bullshit. History advises most strongly
against trusting the warranty.

A health warning does seem appropriate in this particular case, but you
are entirely free to ignore it.

Cheers -
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
Email: ***@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: [phone] Fax: -466550
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)

[Gripper]

How is it dangerous to health?
Carl wrote:

> Gripper wrote:
> > That last post was supposed to moan at you miserable RSR heavies for
> > knocking something youve not tried and to suggest that It is nice that
> > someone is at leat trying something different rather than just another
> > copy of a copy of a copy.
> >
> >
> >
>
> It would be welcomed were it an original, & had the original outfit not
> crashed & burned in a blaze of illfounded warranties & illicit slurs on
> the products of well-regarded manufacturers.
>
> The new website, while tamer than its direct predecessor (& wisely so),
> is from the same source. This is a resuscitated version of the original
> product. The hype reeks of bullshit. History advises most strongly
> against trusting the warranty.
>
> A health warning does seem appropriate in this particular case, but you
> are entirely free to ignore it.
>
> Cheers -
> Carl
> --
> Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
> Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
> Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
> Email: ***@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: [phone] Fax: -466550
> URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)

[S M]

Gripper wrote:
> How is it dangerous to health?

You just asked Carl Douglas how a boat with no under seat buoyancy* and
reduced hight sax board was dangerous to health?? <run a mile>

On top of the obvious, Carl might also be pointing out a >W<ealth
warning. I know of a club that owns a 2Kv which went soggier than the
guarantee said it would, and low and behold the company had gone under.

Actually - I thought that the ARA had mandated that all new boats should
be built with sufficient buoyancy these days - or was that wishful thinking?

------------

* assumption from post by Sarah F (this thread)

[Stamps]

Gripper wrote:
> How is it dangerous to health?
> Carl wrote:
>

It's a figure of speech of course (or are you being clever?), and to me
reads as a general 'caveat emptor' warning, in that you should go in
with your eyes open given the past history described. They may be
great, they may be terrible, so don't necessarily believe the hype -
goes for any new (boat) manufacturer I suppose.....

Mark

[s***@btinternet.com]

Where do you know from this are resuscitated version of the original
Products?
As it sounds it's the same person designing those boats. They must be
new and not copies of existing boats!
The figures about those boats on the CRS web site are different to the
2kV site (you published the link). All technical figures are different
and as it looks they are better.

Where are your design details to compare them?
You claim on your web site: We know no faster design. Our boats do less
than any other boat to slow you down.
Have a look around, may you can find a faster design now. Not knowing
dose not mean something doesn't exist.
I can't remember anybody rowing a Carl Douglas boats in World
Cup's, World Champ's or Olympics over the last decade. Are those
rowers that good they may be don't need your finest design and finest
build equipment in the world?

Why are you throwing shit on something you even don't know?
You warning people about a health risk on those boats, strong staff,
where is this coming from? This is below the belt!

Worried about new kids on the block!? A new competitor who may have a
better boat?

Simon

Carl wrote:
> Gripper wrote:
> > That last post was supposed to moan at you miserable RSR heavies for
> > knocking something youve not tried and to suggest that It is nice that
> > someone is at leat trying something different rather than just another
> > copy of a copy of a copy.
> >
> >
> >
>
> It would be welcomed were it an original, & had the original outfit not
> crashed & burned in a blaze of illfounded warranties & illicit slurs on
> the products of well-regarded manufacturers.
>
> The new website, while tamer than its direct predecessor (& wisely so),
> is from the same source. This is a resuscitated version of the original
> product. The hype reeks of bullshit. History advises most strongly
> against trusting the warranty.
>
> A health warning does seem appropriate in this particular case, but you
> are entirely free to ignore it.
>
> Cheers -
> Carl
> --
> Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
> Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
> Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
> Email: ***@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: [phone] Fax: -466550
> URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)

[Carl]

***@btinternet.com wrote:
> Where do you know from this are resuscitated version of the original
> Products?
> As it sounds it's the same person designing those boats. They must be
> new and not copies of existing boats!
> The figures about those boats on the CRS web site are different to the
> 2kV site (you published the link). All technical figures are different
> and as it looks they are better.
>
> Where are your design details to compare them?
> You claim on your web site: We know no faster design. Our boats do less
> than any other boat to slow you down.
> Have a look around, may you can find a faster design now. Not knowing
> dose not mean something doesn't exist.
> I can't remember anybody rowing a Carl Douglas boats in World
> Cup's, World Champ's or Olympics over the last decade. Are those
> rowers that good they may be don't need your finest design and finest
> build equipment in the world?
>
> Why are you throwing shit on something you even don't know?
> You warning people about a health risk on those boats, strong staff,
> where is this coming from? This is below the belt!
>
> Worried about new kids on the block!? A new competitor who may have a
> better boat?
>
> Simon
>
>

As well as screwing up the threading by top posting, you write in the
same aggressive/assertive manner as the old 2kv website - i.e. full of
noisy challenges & crap. And are you really telling us that Gunther has
changed his basic hull shapes? Why would he do that after having told
everyone only 6 years ago how very much better they were than anyone
else's? And can you really defend the garbage that was in the 2kv website?

FYI, I don't need to defend our products' reputation, nor to help you
with your memory problems. It has always been a point of honour for us
that we back those who use our products to the hilt but will _never_
sponsor or underwrite fast competitors. Of course we've been asked to
do so, but each time we have declined, so that our clients don't find
themselves subsidising the boats of others. This, as you choose to see
it, has the down-side that rather few of our boats appear in World
championships these days. On the credit side, we can say with complete
honesty that those of our boats in which world & other international
medals have been won (note, we never claim that it is our boats which
win the medals) were all fully paid-for by their users.

I suppose you don't count as success the fact that several divisions of
last years Scullers Head of the River Race were won in our boats
(including the overall winner) & that so many events in regattas are
also won by our clients. Well, I guess that's your problem & it
indicates that you should get out & about more often. Maybe you should
even try racing in our boats? I think you'd find it most rewarding.

As for being worried about CRS - why on earth should that be? I
welcome, & have always welcomed, competition & have no problems with new
ventures. Every firm currently building racing shells in the UK is
younger than ours & we regard them all as friends. Your world may be
populated by shifty individuals with dodgy motives but that's not how I
see mine. What worries me is worthless hype, false prospectuses, nbogus
warranties unsustainable promises & the experience of seeing decent if
gullible investors' funds go down the pan. Remember the old saying "You
are only as good as your last race"? CRS have, after the 2kv fiasco, to
earn a reputation before they can claim one.

Cheers -
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
Email: ***@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: [phone] Fax: -466550
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)

[LRC/DCBC]

No disrespect to you carl. You know what your doing. But please put
your specs on and take a look at the boat Tom won the head in!! Unless
you have decided to paint yours white and disguise them as a Filippis
,your wrong on that count.

Just because someone may have owned one in the past doesn't mean they
haven't sold it cause there is something faster.

On Nov 24, 1:21 pm, Carl <***@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote:
> ***@btinternet.com wrote:
> > Where do you know from this are resuscitated version of the original
> > Products?
> > As it sounds it's the same person designing those boats. They must be
> > new and not copies of existing boats!
> > The figures about those boats on the CRS web site are different to the
> > 2kV site (you published the link). All technical figures are different
> > and as it looks they are better.
>
> > Where are your design details to compare them?
> > You claim on your web site: We know no faster design. Our boats do less
> > than any other boat to slow you down.
> > Have a look around, may you can find a faster design now. Not knowing
> > dose not mean something doesn't exist.
> > I can't remember anybody rowing a Carl Douglas boats in World
> > Cup's, World Champ's or Olympics over the last decade. Are those
> > rowers that good they may be don't need your finest design and finest
> > build equipment in the world?
>
> > Why are you throwing shit on something you even don't know?
> > You warning people about a health risk on those boats, strong staff,
> > where is this coming from? This is below the belt!
>
> > Worried about new kids on the block!? A new competitor who may have a
> > better boat?
>
> > SimonAs well as screwing up the threading by top posting, you write in the
> same aggressive/assertive manner as the old 2kv website - i.e. full of
> noisy challenges & crap. And are you really telling us that Gunther has
> changed his basic hull shapes? Why would he do that after having told
> everyone only 6 years ago how very much better they were than anyone
> else's? And can you really defend the garbage that was in the 2kv website?
>
> FYI, I don't need to defend our products' reputation, nor to help you
> with your memory problems. It has always been a point of honour for us
> that we back those who use our products to the hilt but will _never_
> sponsor or underwrite fast competitors. Of course we've been asked to
> do so, but each time we have declined, so that our clients don't find
> themselves subsidising the boats of others. This, as you choose to see
> it, has the down-side that rather few of our boats appear in World
> championships these days. On the credit side, we can say with complete
> honesty that those of our boats in which world & other international
> medals have been won (note, we never claim that it is our boats which
> win the medals) were all fully paid-for by their users.
>
> I suppose you don't count as success the fact that several divisions of
> last years Scullers Head of the River Race were won in our boats
> (including the overall winner) & that so many events in regattas are
> also won by our clients. Well, I guess that's your problem & it
> indicates that you should get out & about more often. Maybe you should
> even try racing in our boats? I think you'd find it most rewarding.
>
> As for being worried about CRS - why on earth should that be? I
> welcome, & have always welcomed, competition & have no problems with new
> ventures. Every firm currently building racing shells in the UK is
> younger than ours & we regard them all as friends. Your world may be
> populated by shifty individuals with dodgy motives but that's not how I
> see mine. What worries me is worthless hype, false prospectuses, nbogus
> warranties unsustainable promises & the experience of seeing decent if
> gullible investors' funds go down the pan. Remember the old saying "You
> are only as good as your last race"? CRS have, after the 2kv fiasco, to
> earn a reputation before they can claim one.
>
> Cheers -
> Carl
> --
> Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
> Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
> Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
> Email: ***@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: [phone] Fax: -466550
> URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk(boats) &www.aerowing.co.uk(riggers)- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

[Carl]

LRC/DCBC wrote:
> No disrespect to you carl. You know what your doing. But please put
> your specs on and take a look at the boat Tom won the head in!! Unless
> you have decided to paint yours white and disguise them as a Filippis
> ,your wrong on that count.
>
> Just because someone may have owned one in the past doesn't mean they
> haven't sold it cause there is something faster.
>

Entirely my goof - many thanks! Obviously in this instance I did not
know what I was doing & will make haste to correct mys error.

I had written "lightweight winner overall" (which was Danny Harte of
LRC, of course) but then I screwed up my cut & paste editing. :(

Apologies to Tom, who was indeed the overall & heavyweight winner in a
time 6.65 seconds faster than Danny. AFAIK, Tom outgrew the boat we
built for him when he was still a lad at school up in Hexham. The last
time we saw that boat was when we refurbished it for him in January 1997
& I believe it is still going strong.

Danny's boat is over 10 years old. He bought it from James Lindsay-Finn
who'd acquired it several years previously from its first owner. It has
always been on the Tideway, had 1 refurb & is still going strong.

Cheers -
Carl

--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
Email: ***@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: [phone] Fax: -466550
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)

[LRC/DCBC]

http://www.bigblade.net/rowing/events/2005/shor05/bydivision/displayimage.pl?src=divisions&im=0683&offset=1

Here is the link of Tom sculling in a Carl douglas.

Just tried the new CRS sigle out. I thought it was very nice, handled
very well, Ran very well , Good at high speed.

Give the guys a chance. I don't think anybody can break into the Eights
market.But the singles market is never closed. It's not rocket science.

Ian

On Nov 24, 1:21 pm, Carl <***@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote:
> ***@btinternet.com wrote:
> > Where do you know from this are resuscitated version of the original
> > Products?
> > As it sounds it's the same person designing those boats. They must be
> > new and not copies of existing boats!
> > The figures about those boats on the CRS web site are different to the
> > 2kV site (you published the link). All technical figures are different
> > and as it looks they are better.
>
> > Where are your design details to compare them?
> > You claim on your web site: We know no faster design. Our boats do less
> > than any other boat to slow you down.
> > Have a look around, may you can find a faster design now. Not knowing
> > dose not mean something doesn't exist.
> > I can't remember anybody rowing a Carl Douglas boats in World
> > Cup's, World Champ's or Olympics over the last decade. Are those
> > rowers that good they may be don't need your finest design and finest
> > build equipment in the world?
>
> > Why are you throwing shit on something you even don't know?
> > You warning people about a health risk on those boats, strong staff,
> > where is this coming from? This is below the belt!
>
> > Worried about new kids on the block!? A new competitor who may have a
> > better boat?
>
> > SimonAs well as screwing up the threading by top posting, you write in the
> same aggressive/assertive manner as the old 2kv website - i.e. full of
> noisy challenges & crap. And are you really telling us that Gunther has
> changed his basic hull shapes? Why would he do that after having told
> everyone only 6 years ago how very much better they were than anyone
> else's? And can you really defend the garbage that was in the 2kv website?
>
> FYI, I don't need to defend our products' reputation, nor to help you
> with your memory problems. It has always been a point of honour for us
> that we back those who use our products to the hilt but will _never_
> sponsor or underwrite fast competitors. Of course we've been asked to
> do so, but each time we have declined, so that our clients don't find
> themselves subsidising the boats of others. This, as you choose to see
> it, has the down-side that rather few of our boats appear in World
> championships these days. On the credit side, we can say with complete
> honesty that those of our boats in which world & other international
> medals have been won (note, we never claim that it is our boats which
> win the medals) were all fully paid-for by their users.
>
> I suppose you don't count as success the fact that several divisions of
> last years Scullers Head of the River Race were won in our boats
> (including the overall winner) & that so many events in regattas are
> also won by our clients. Well, I guess that's your problem & it
> indicates that you should get out & about more often. Maybe you should
> even try racing in our boats? I think you'd find it most rewarding.
>
> As for being worried about CRS - why on earth should that be? I
> welcome, & have always welcomed, competition & have no problems with new
> ventures. Every firm currently building racing shells in the UK is
> younger than ours & we regard them all as friends. Your world may be
> populated by shifty individuals with dodgy motives but that's not how I
> see mine. What worries me is worthless hype, false prospectuses, nbogus
> warranties unsustainable promises & the experience of seeing decent if
> gullible investors' funds go down the pan. Remember the old saying "You
> are only as good as your last race"? CRS have, after the 2kv fiasco, to
> earn a reputation before they can claim one.
>
> Cheers -
> Carl
> --
> Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
> Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
> Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
> Email: ***@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: [phone] Fax: -466550
> URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk(boats) &www.aerowing.co.uk(riggers)- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

[Michael Walker]

Just in case it's of any minor interest, I have actually rowed in a CRS
eight. I know nothing about the physics involved (and, in any case,
it's what the stop-watch says that counts!), however it is a good,
fast, light, stable eight and compares very well with most other
manufacturers that I'm familiar with. It also goes round corners,
which some manufacturers seem to have forgotten exist...

I can't say it's beautiful to look at, but then that's just my personal
view.

Nobody starts Companies with a view to going down the pan, so all
credit to the guy for having another shot at it - not the easiest
choice to make. All the investors I know - and there may well be some
I don't - have their eyes wide-open, weren't born yesterday and know a
decent eight when they see one. (btw - I'm not one of them!).

[happy_john]

Speaking as someone who has had the dubious pleasure of coxing a 2kv
VIII I certainly wouldn't buy one-the hull warped on ours pretty
rapidly leaving it permanently down to bowside, frankly I'd use my old
college club's vintage wooden ERB anyday.

LRC/DCBC wrote:

> http://www.bigblade.net/rowing/events/2005/shor05/bydivision/displayimage.pl?src=divisions&im=0683&offset=1
>
> Here is the link of Tom sculling in a Carl douglas.
>
> Just tried the new CRS sigle out. I thought it was very nice, handled
> very well, Ran very well , Good at high speed.
>
> Give the guys a chance. I don't think anybody can break into the Eights
> market.But the singles market is never closed. It's not rocket science.
>
> Ian
>
> On Nov 24, 1:21 pm, Carl <***@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote:
> > ***@btinternet.com wrote:
> > > Where do you know from this are resuscitated version of the original
> > > Products?
> > > As it sounds it's the same person designing those boats. They must be
> > > new and not copies of existing boats!
> > > The figures about those boats on the CRS web site are different to the
> > > 2kV site (you published the link). All technical figures are different
> > > and as it looks they are better.
> >
> > > Where are your design details to compare them?
> > > You claim on your web site: We know no faster design. Our boats do less
> > > than any other boat to slow you down.
> > > Have a look around, may you can find a faster design now. Not knowing
> > > dose not mean something doesn't exist.
> > > I can't remember anybody rowing a Carl Douglas boats in World
> > > Cup's, World Champ's or Olympics over the last decade. Are those
> > > rowers that good they may be don't need your finest design and finest
> > > build equipment in the world?
> >
> > > Why are you throwing shit on something you even don't know?
> > > You warning people about a health risk on those boats, strong staff,
> > > where is this coming from? This is below the belt!
> >
> > > Worried about new kids on the block!? A new competitor who may have a
> > > better boat?
> >
> > > SimonAs well as screwing up the threading by top posting, you write in the
> > same aggressive/assertive manner as the old 2kv website - i.e. full of
> > noisy challenges & crap. And are you really telling us that Gunther has
> > changed his basic hull shapes? Why would he do that after having told
> > everyone only 6 years ago how very much better they were than anyone
> > else's? And can you really defend the garbage that was in the 2kv website?
> >
> > FYI, I don't need to defend our products' reputation, nor to help you
> > with your memory problems. It has always been a point of honour for us
> > that we back those who use our products to the hilt but will _never_
> > sponsor or underwrite fast competitors. Of course we've been asked to
> > do so, but each time we have declined, so that our clients don't find
> > themselves subsidising the boats of others. This, as you choose to see
> > it, has the down-side that rather few of our boats appear in World
> > championships these days. On the credit side, we can say with complete
> > honesty that those of our boats in which world & other international
> > medals have been won (note, we never claim that it is our boats which
> > win the medals) were all fully paid-for by their users.
> >
> > I suppose you don't count as success the fact that several divisions of
> > last years Scullers Head of the River Race were won in our boats
> > (including the overall winner) & that so many events in regattas are
> > also won by our clients. Well, I guess that's your problem & it
> > indicates that you should get out & about more often. Maybe you should
> > even try racing in our boats? I think you'd find it most rewarding.
> >
> > As for being worried about CRS - why on earth should that be? I
> > welcome, & have always welcomed, competition & have no problems with new
> > ventures. Every firm currently building racing shells in the UK is
> > younger than ours & we regard them all as friends. Your world may be
> > populated by shifty individuals with dodgy motives but that's not how I
> > see mine. What worries me is worthless hype, false prospectuses, nbogus
> > warranties unsustainable promises & the experience of seeing decent if
> > gullible investors' funds go down the pan. Remember the old saying "You
> > are only as good as your last race"? CRS have, after the 2kv fiasco, to
> > earn a reputation before they can claim one.
> >
> > Cheers -
> > Carl
> > --
> > Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
> > Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
> > Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
> > Email: ***@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: [phone] Fax: -466550
> > URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk(boats) &www.aerowing.co.uk(riggers)- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

[s***@btinternet.com]

I don't know if the basic design has changed. I haven't seen one of
this boats jet.

The 2kV design was good. I had one of them and sold it because of a
back injury tow years ago. Very nice boats! Smoot run and rock solid
build!
The figures of the new CRS boats are different to 2kV, so there seems
something has changed, as it looks further improvements. Will have a
trial and look really forward to it.

There is no aggression in my statements! What gets me is to talk
somebody in the ground before he even has the chance to stand up. OK,
it's not welcome competition. Carl Douglas claim to have a high
reputation, why this dirty way.

You are trapped in the past of 2kV. I can't find any false
prospectuses or worthless hype on the CRS web site and they are not
claiming to have a reputation. From my point of view they provide a
lot more info about they boats than anybody else. They have oafishly
nothing to hide. As long as you don't know better and can't prove
them wrong mind your business.

Your warnings over this newcomer have a sour taste to me!

Simon

Carl wrote:
> ***@btinternet.com wrote:
> > Where do you know from this are resuscitated version of the original
> > Products?
> > As it sounds it's the same person designing those boats. They must be
> > new and not copies of existing boats!
> > The figures about those boats on the CRS web site are different to the
> > 2kV site (you published the link). All technical figures are different
> > and as it looks they are better.
> >
> > Where are your design details to compare them?
> > You claim on your web site: We know no faster design. Our boats do less
> > than any other boat to slow you down.
> > Have a look around, may you can find a faster design now. Not knowing
> > dose not mean something doesn't exist.
> > I can't remember anybody rowing a Carl Douglas boats in World
> > Cup's, World Champ's or Olympics over the last decade. Are those
> > rowers that good they may be don't need your finest design and finest
> > build equipment in the world?
> >
> > Why are you throwing shit on something you even don't know?
> > You warning people about a health risk on those boats, strong staff,
> > where is this coming from? This is below the belt!
> >
> > Worried about new kids on the block!? A new competitor who may have a
> > better boat?
> >
> > Simon
> >
> >
>
> As well as screwing up the threading by top posting, you write in the
> same aggressive/assertive manner as the old 2kv website - i.e. full of
> noisy challenges & crap. And are you really telling us that Gunther has
> changed his basic hull shapes? Why would he do that after having told
> everyone only 6 years ago how very much better they were than anyone
> else's? And can you really defend the garbage that was in the 2kv website?
>
> FYI, I don't need to defend our products' reputation, nor to help you
> with your memory problems. It has always been a point of honour for us
> that we back those who use our products to the hilt but will _never_
> sponsor or underwrite fast competitors. Of course we've been asked to
> do so, but each time we have declined, so that our clients don't find
> themselves subsidising the boats of others. This, as you choose to see
> it, has the down-side that rather few of our boats appear in World
> championships these days. On the credit side, we can say with complete
> honesty that those of our boats in which world & other international
> medals have been won (note, we never claim that it is our boats which
> win the medals) were all fully paid-for by their users.
>
> I suppose you don't count as success the fact that several divisions of
> last years Scullers Head of the River Race were won in our boats
> (including the overall winner) & that so many events in regattas are
> also won by our clients. Well, I guess that's your problem & it
> indicates that you should get out & about more often. Maybe you should
> even try racing in our boats? I think you'd find it most rewarding.
>
> As for being worried about CRS - why on earth should that be? I
> welcome, & have always welcomed, competition & have no problems with new
> ventures. Every firm currently building racing shells in the UK is
> younger than ours & we regard them all as friends. Your world may be
> populated by shifty individuals with dodgy motives but that's not how I
> see mine. What worries me is worthless hype, false prospectuses, nbogus
> warranties unsustainable promises & the experience of seeing decent if
> gullible investors' funds go down the pan. Remember the old saying "You
> are only as good as your last race"? CRS have, after the 2kv fiasco, to
> earn a reputation before they can claim one.
>
> Cheers -
> Carl
> --
> Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
> Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
> Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
> Email: ***@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: [phone] Fax: -466550
> URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)

[Carl]

***@btinternet.com wrote:
> I don't know if the basic design has changed. I haven't seen one of
> this boats jet.
>
> The 2kV design was good. I had one of them and sold it because of a
> back injury tow years ago. Very nice boats! Smoot run and rock solid
> build!
> The figures of the new CRS boats are different to 2kV, so there seems
> something has changed, as it looks further improvements. Will have a
> trial and look really forward to it.
>
> There is no aggression in my statements! What gets me is to talk
> somebody in the ground before he even has the chance to stand up. OK,
> it's not welcome competition. Carl Douglas claim to have a high
> reputation, why this dirty way.
>
> You are trapped in the past of 2kV. I can't find any false
> prospectuses or worthless hype on the CRS web site and they are not
> claiming to have a reputation. From my point of view they provide a
> lot more info about they boats than anybody else. They have oafishly
> nothing to hide. As long as you don't know better and can't prove
> them wrong mind your business.
>
> Your warnings over this newcomer have a sour taste to me!
>
> Simon
>

Simon -

Facts are not dirty. Bullshit is. Products should not be advertised
via claims which are false or cannot be substantiated. So it is only
proper to question over-promotion, especially when its source has a
record of promotion which denigrates the products & motives of others.
Such questioning will, unsurprisingly, offend those with a vested
interest in that over-promotion or in self-delusion.

Rowing loves combining too much bullshit with too little knowledge, so
equipment selection is too often faith-based rather than the logical
outcome of careful testing. Crews may be seat-raced, sometimes to
destruction, but boats are bought on the basis of who this week is using
or claiming what. And without properly time-trialling boats, or blades,
or techniques, people will leap to assure us that this or that is
"fast". Is that clever?

As for aggression in your statements, please re-read your earlier response:
> Jeremy, had you ever had a look for this Stelph boats?
> They look like 'Empatcher'! ! ! ! ! Or?
> Only a bit the supermarket version?
> Are you paranoid?

You really want us to believe that is neither insulting, nor aggressive,
nor that it gratuitously denigrates the product of another company? You
should pull that plank from your own eye before complaining of imagined
specks of dust in someone else's eye.

Were this a newcomer & not making outlandish claims, or the rebirth of a
firm with a proven reputation & nothing to hide, I'd wish it a fair
wind. But it does have a clouded past of evaporating warranties &
hyperbolic claims. Why would _you_ prefer this not to be known? Why
would _you_ want buyers (& investors) to be kept in the dark? Do you,
by any chance, have any involvement in CRS?

I hope CRS can & will serve the market well. For the reasons discussed,
however, a degree of informed caution is in order. I have responded
with relevant information to the points that you & others have made &
now it may be best to see how things turn out.

Cheers -
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
Email: ***@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: [phone] Fax: -466550
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)

[s***@btinternet.com]

Carl,

I write my points of view between your text.

You said: Facts are not dirty.
Right, as long as this 'facts' are right. You claimed to have the
overall win at the Scullers Head in 2005 and you had to learn, reminded
by Ian, that this hasn't been the case. Tom changed boat from one of
yours to a Filippi. He won the event. Why has he changed to Filippi?

You said: Bullshit is. Products should not be advertised
via claims which are false or cannot be substantiated. . . . . . . . .
. ..

You are repeating this phrases again and again. Please come forward,
what are the false unsubstantiated claims made by CRS. As a former
owner of such a boat, I can't find any! Look forward to your facts,
not phrases!

You said: Rowing loves combining too much bullshit with too little
knowledge, . . . . . . . . . . . .
Are you now claiming rowers are stupid because they are not all buying
your boats?
Has Tom changed over to Filippi because he believed in, as you claim,
bullshit? Everybody can make his mind up over such an attitude of you
against your own customer!
This is the second time you using the word 'bullshit' against your
competitor only in this respond! This is insulting and aggressive. Is
this the business stile of Carl Douglas, no thank you!

You said: . . . . . . . . And without properly time-trialling boats,
or blades,
or techniques, people will leap to assure us that this or that is
"fast". Is that clever?

As far as I read CRS is invitation everybody to have a trial with those
boats to find out what's behind those designs! What more can you ask
for as a customer. Where are your time trial results on your web site?
You claim there have no test been undertaken. How do you know? Do you
think they make tests in your back garden?


You said: Were this a newcomer & not making outlandish claims, or the
rebirth of a
firm with a proven reputation & nothing to hide, I'd wish it a fair
wind. But it does have a clouded past of evaporating warranties &
hyperbolic claims. Why would _you_ prefer this not to be known? Why
would _you_ want buyers (& investors) to be kept in the dark? Do you,
by any chance, have any involvement in CRS?

First, I have no involvement in CRS! ! I'm only a satisfied former
customer of 2kV and can't stand you and some others trying to put
them down with insulting CRS to tell, your words, bullshit and false
claims!
I like them to have success and give me the chance to buy such a boat
again in the near future.
Tell me which claims are false and please proof this, but not again
like your claim for a win at Scullers Head 2005.

Simon

Carl wrote:
> ***@btinternet.com wrote:
> > I don't know if the basic design has changed. I haven't seen one of
> > this boats jet.
> >
> > The 2kV design was good. I had one of them and sold it because of a
> > back injury tow years ago. Very nice boats! Smoot run and rock solid
> > build!
> > The figures of the new CRS boats are different to 2kV, so there seems
> > something has changed, as it looks further improvements. Will have a
> > trial and look really forward to it.
> >
> > There is no aggression in my statements! What gets me is to talk
> > somebody in the ground before he even has the chance to stand up. OK,
> > it's not welcome competition. Carl Douglas claim to have a high
> > reputation, why this dirty way.
> >
> > You are trapped in the past of 2kV. I can't find any false
> > prospectuses or worthless hype on the CRS web site and they are not
> > claiming to have a reputation. From my point of view they provide a
> > lot more info about they boats than anybody else. They have oafishly
> > nothing to hide. As long as you don't know better and can't prove
> > them wrong mind your business.
> >
> > Your warnings over this newcomer have a sour taste to me!
> >
> > Simon
> >
>
> Simon -
>
> Facts are not dirty. Bullshit is. Products should not be advertised
> via claims which are false or cannot be substantiated. So it is only
> proper to question over-promotion, especially when its source has a
> record of promotion which denigrates the products & motives of others.
> Such questioning will, unsurprisingly, offend those with a vested
> interest in that over-promotion or in self-delusion.
>
> Rowing loves combining too much bullshit with too little knowledge, so
> equipment selection is too often faith-based rather than the logical
> outcome of careful testing. Crews may be seat-raced, sometimes to
> destruction, but boats are bought on the basis of who this week is using
> or claiming what. And without properly time-trialling boats, or blades,
> or techniques, people will leap to assure us that this or that is
> "fast". Is that clever?
>
> As for aggression in your statements, please re-read your earlier response:
> > Jeremy, had you ever had a look for this Stelph boats?
> > They look like 'Empatcher'! ! ! ! ! Or?
> > Only a bit the supermarket version?
> > Are you paranoid?
>
> You really want us to believe that is neither insulting, nor aggressive,
> nor that it gratuitously denigrates the product of another company? You
> should pull that plank from your own eye before complaining of imagined
> specks of dust in someone else's eye.
>
> Were this a newcomer & not making outlandish claims, or the rebirth of a
> firm with a proven reputation & nothing to hide, I'd wish it a fair
> wind. But it does have a clouded past of evaporating warranties &
> hyperbolic claims. Why would _you_ prefer this not to be known? Why
> would _you_ want buyers (& investors) to be kept in the dark? Do you,
> by any chance, have any involvement in CRS?
>
> I hope CRS can & will serve the market well. For the reasons discussed,
> however, a degree of informed caution is in order. I have responded
> with relevant information to the points that you & others have made &
> now it may be best to see how things turn out.
>
> Cheers -
> Carl
> --
> Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
> Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
> Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
> Email: ***@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: [phone] Fax: -466550
> URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)

[Rob Collings]

***@btinternet.com wrote:

Please learn to quote properly - it makes the discussion much easier to
follow. Google groups seems to use this style be default now (woohoo!).
As you have done it, it is much harder to see what is original comment
and what is quoted text.

> You are repeating this phrases again and again. Please come forward,
> what are the false unsubstantiated claims made by CRS. As a former
> owner of such a boat, I can't find any! Look forward to your facts,
> not phrases!

I had a look at the CRS website and I'm afraid many of the claims smell
rather odd to me too. When 2kv was about, their approach intrigued me
and I looked in deeper. When I read any of their materials, it reeked
of marketing bullshit. My background in fluid mechanics is rather an
elementary one, but I know a bit more than Joe Public and some of the
claims that were made were fundamentally wrong. They also took mutually
exclusive conditions and claimed to meet them both. The marketing was
an attempt to baffle people with science by inlcuding fancy phrases,
acronyms and numbers in the hope that your average rower would look and
go "wow - these guys know what they are doing." But it rather seems
that they didn't.

I know nothing about the CRS venture other than what I see on their
website. They may produce fine boats BUT the same marketing uses the
same senseless waffle and makes rather similar claims.

> This is the second time you using the word 'bullshit' against your
> competitor only in this respond! This is insulting and aggressive. Is
> this the business stile of Carl Douglas, no thank you!

Maybe it's just the way things turn out, but whenever I've spoken to
Carl I have never heard him say that business was slow or things were a
little quite in the workshop. I know some people don't like to believe
it, but it never seems like Carl needs to market his shells more
aggressively because he always seems to be working at somewhere near
full capacity.

> First, I have no involvement in CRS! ! I'm only a satisfied former
> customer of 2kV and can't stand you and some others trying to put
> them down with insulting CRS to tell, your words, bullshit and false
> claims!
> I like them to have success and give me the chance to buy such a boat
> again in the near future.

If they can produce quality shells then all power to them. But, with a
rather suspicious history and a great deal of marketing nonsense, most
people would be well advised to wait and take any urgent shell orders
elsewhere. If you have a few thousand pounds to gamble on a new
venture, then by all means buy a new one and we'll look forward to
hearing how it compares over the next few years. Most individuals and
clubs do not have money to burn in such a fashion and there are a
number of safer bets around.

> Tell me which claims are false and please proof this, but not again
> like your claim for a win at Scullers Head 2005.

I think that was a genuine typo or oversight. When I spoke to him about
this a while back, he seemed rather clear on who won what and in what
boat.

Rob.

[Charles Carroll]

Simon,

Would it help to jettison the ad homonym arguing and questioning of motives,
and instead discuss the claims made on the CRS website?

CRS claims: “One major problem with current rowing and sculling boats lies
in the fact that their hulls loose much of their stiffness, in an
unacceptably short period of time. This deterioration is so marked that most
current boats become well nigh unusable for racing purposes within two to
three years. Almost all boats on the market suffer from this drawback.”

Is this true? Do most boats automatically lose their stiffness? If so, why?

On this side of the pond Resolute is claiming that some of its very stiff,
well-built shells from the early 1990s are still as stiff as they were the
day they were sold, and are still being raced and winning races. I know
Coaches who back this up. Moreover, if memory serves me correctly, some time
ago someone wrote that he had a twenty-year-old Carl Douglas and was still
racing it and winning.

CRS claims: “The hull shapes designed by Gunther Borutta (GB) are unique in
minimising all of the physical factors that create drag … All CRS Single
Sculls also have the smallest Wetted Surface Area (WSA) of any boat designs
available in the market … The smaller the area, the less surface there is
for the water to slow down the boat as the hull moves through the water.”

Wetted surface is a subject that has been discussed on rsr many times. These
discussions have left me with the idea that there are many factors in good
hull design that contribute to a shell’s speed, and that wetted surface is
only one of them. Moreover, by itself, wetted surface is a relatively
meaningless factor. To put it simply, it is pure persiflage to suggest that
a competitor’s boat will go slower because it has more wetted surface.

These are only two of the claims on the CRS website. Perhaps someone else
with more competence and time might address some of the others.

Cordially,

Charles

[Carl]

***@btinternet.com wrote:
> Carl,
>
> I write my points of view between your text.
>
> You said: Facts are not dirty.
> Right, as long as this 'facts' are right. You claimed to have the
> overall win at the Scullers Head in 2005 and you had to learn, reminded
> by Ian, that this hasn't been the case. Tom changed boat from one of
> yours to a Filippi. He won the event. Why has he changed to Filippi?
>
> You said: Bullshit is. Products should not be advertised
> via claims which are false or cannot be substantiated. . . . . . . . .
> . ..
>
> You are repeating this phrases again and again. Please come forward,
> what are the false unsubstantiated claims made by CRS. As a former
> owner of such a boat, I can't find any! Look forward to your facts,
> not phrases!
>
> You said: Rowing loves combining too much bullshit with too little
> knowledge, . . . . . . . . . . . .
> Are you now claiming rowers are stupid because they are not all buying
> your boats?
> Has Tom changed over to Filippi because he believed in, as you claim,
> bullshit? Everybody can make his mind up over such an attitude of you
> against your own customer!
> This is the second time you using the word 'bullshit' against your
> competitor only in this respond! This is insulting and aggressive. Is
> this the business stile of Carl Douglas, no thank you!
>
> You said: . . . . . . . . And without properly time-trialling boats,
> or blades,
> or techniques, people will leap to assure us that this or that is
> "fast". Is that clever?
>
> As far as I read CRS is invitation everybody to have a trial with those
> boats to find out what's behind those designs! What more can you ask
> for as a customer. Where are your time trial results on your web site?
> You claim there have no test been undertaken. How do you know? Do you
> think they make tests in your back garden?
>
>
> You said: Were this a newcomer & not making outlandish claims, or the
> rebirth of a
> firm with a proven reputation & nothing to hide, I'd wish it a fair
> wind. But it does have a clouded past of evaporating warranties &
> hyperbolic claims. Why would _you_ prefer this not to be known? Why
> would _you_ want buyers (& investors) to be kept in the dark? Do you,
> by any chance, have any involvement in CRS?
>
> First, I have no involvement in CRS! ! I'm only a satisfied former
> customer of 2kV and can't stand you and some others trying to put
> them down with insulting CRS to tell, your words, bullshit and false
> claims!
> I like them to have success and give me the chance to buy such a boat
> again in the near future.
> Tell me which claims are false and please proof this, but not again
> like your claim for a win at Scullers Head 2005.
>

I'm so happy that you were able to get your deeply unattractive load of
invective off your chest, Simon. Do you feel any better now?

I'm sorry that you felt it necessary to cling so desperately to my
editing error as your key argument against me. I made an editing slip
which I had promptly acknowledged & corrected a long time before you
made this latest intemperate response. Do you really imagine that any
sane person, let alone one in my positions, would hope or expect to pass
off such an obvious typo as the truth - especially as I happen know both
Tom & Danny & I count them as friends? But I am forgetting - you're the
guy who thinks it's OK to call people paranoid, who wants us to
disregard both facts & history, & who thinks that argument is best built
on irrelevant innuendo.

You had previously sought to deny the relevance of the connections I had
made between the late, departed 2kv & the newborn CRS. I was amused to
see you reconstruct this link by your own reference to your having been
a former (but not current) 2kv customer. You make my case perfectly.

Were I to stoop to your level of argument, I suppose I might seek to
make capital out of your being a _former_ 2kv owner & pretend that this
showed you found other makes to be better, or that your 2kv had hidden
failings. Please note that I don't & won't play either of those
juvenile tricks. However, I will point your attention towards the
well-informed replies you have already received from Rob & Charles
concerning unreal, false & outrageous claims currently being made by
CRS. Such claims, although you may not realise it, are 100% bullshit
which no manufacturer hoping to run a reputable business should publish.

Cheers -
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
Email: ***@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: [phone] Fax: -466550
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)

[Gripper]

Dont forget the well informed reply from Ian, Who actaully had a go in
one(scull)!


Carl wrote:

I will point your attention towards the
> well-informed replies you have already received from Rob & Charles
> concerning unreal, false & outrageous claims currently being made by
> CRS. Such claims, although you may not realise it, are 100% bullshit
> which no manufacturer hoping to run a reputable business should publish.
>
> Cheers -
> Carl

[Carl]

Gripper wrote:
> Carl wrote:
>
> I will point your attention towards the
>
>>well-informed replies you have already received from Rob & Charles
>>concerning unreal, false & outrageous claims currently being made by
>>CRS. Such claims, although you may not realise it, are 100% bullshit
>>which no manufacturer hoping to run a reputable business should publish.
>>
>
> Dont forget the well informed reply from Ian, Who actaully had a go in
> one(scull)!
>
>

Which does not remotely answer any of the points raised.

Don't you think, Ian, that we should await statistically-meaningful
results? As I said earlier, boats are too often bought on the basis of
opinion, too rarely on solid evidence gained from unbiased time trials,
boat against boat.

Let me quote from the CRS website:
"CRS was established in 2005 by a group of Cambridge rowers and boatmen,
some of which tested GB’s prototypes, who came to the conclusion that
GB’s boats should be on the water, rather than his computer hard drive.
These rowers and boatmen now make up the majority of CRS shareholders."

One should expect strong support among its investors for a new project,
but they can hardly be said to be unbiased.

Nor, I can imagine, would those investors want anyone who might buy
their products to hear too much about the past fiasco. Maybe they
didn't realise before they invested? So I'm hardly surprised, but I am
disappointed, by the futile efforts being made to muffle sources of
relevant information. And I have ask those investors if, unlike in the
case of 2kv, CRS's direct predecessor, each has posted a financial bond
with which to underwrite the 5-year guarantee on their new company's
products? I think they should do so, since there is not the slightest
material evidence nor track record upon which to base or support the
promised 5-year warranty. At present, therefore, that warranty appears
to be an impure fiction. It sounds like a Trades Descriptions Act
breach to me.

In the section beginning, "How did CRS get to where it is now?", the CRS
website makes absolutely plain that its boats are the same as those from
2kv. Or does anyone other than Simon hope we'll be daft enough to
believe that Gunther was, from 1994, designing 2 unrelated fleets of
shells, both with the same attributes claimed by the old & the new websites?

The web page's next sentence is rather a fine example of Gunther's
abrasive, derogatory style:
"GB was frustrated about the fact that no research and development work
had happened within boat design for decades. Everybody copied the 1950s
and 1960s designs of the ‘yellow fleet’."

No, Ian, not "everybody". Some copied Empacher; some copied Karlisch;
some copied Staempfli; some copied van Dusen; some copied VEB; some
copied copies of copies of copies. But some well-regarded builders have
been truly innovative, have created their own unique designs & have
never copied anything made by anyone else. So that CRS statement is a
downright & deliberate lie.

So to the next sentence on that CRS web page. And in view of the
reports of short life & poor quality of 2kv shells (& I had the dubious
privilege of inspecting a delaminating & twisty 2kv 8+, exhibited at
Nottingham shortly before that firm went pop), I find it particularly
rich to see written:
"Another reason for [Gunther's] anger, was the fact that top racing
boats only last a short period of time, before they start to bend and
twist, then having to be replaced, which costs huge amounts of money."

There is, of course, a popular myth that shells soften with time. And
for a few this can be true. But, as a description of the ageing
characteristics of the generality of shells made by the reputable
makers, that CRS statement is absolutely untrue & constitutes a vicious
lie.

Do you really think it OK to promote a product on the basis of the lies
contained within that website, not to mention the lies in the old 2kv
website?

What all this garbage so starkly reminds me of is the old Carbocraft
scandal. You may not remember it, but some of us do, & only too well.
That firm was started in extensive & costly premises by John Vigurs,
international rower &, unfortunately, serial con-artist with a history
of business failures which destroyed the fortunes of a succession of
gullible investors. Vigurs fooled, among others, the late, very decent
Richard Burnell into publishing a series of Sunday Times articles.
These appeared regularly, even weekly, over a period of a year, each
overflowing with glowing praise for this as yet untested product. They
were fed by Vigurs with such gross porkies as that the new eight would
"weigh only 58kg", would be "so light" that it would be "unfair" to
competing crews, & that Carbocraft would thus eliminate all other
manufacturers. So effective was this free promotion that one got a lot
of stick from the rowing public for daring to suggest it was a load of
old cobblers.

In fact, none of it was remotely true. Yet upon pointing out this fact
to Richard, to the Sunday Times, to the Advertising Standards Authority
& to chemicals company supplying his resins (who had hung a costly
advertising campaign on the back of Vigurs' lies) I was promptly
threatened with 3 separate libel writs. Of course, none of those
promised writs ever materialised - it was yet another example of the old
trick by which the wealthy &/or unscrupulous abuse a law which anyway
benefits only the well-funded bully to crush those they suppose to be
easy prey. They got it wrong.

History recalls that, spurred by me & to his lasting credit, Burnell
eventually realised he might actually have been fooled by Vigurs. He
then held weighing tests. These showed that the Carbo shell weighed
just as much as a wooden Karlisch, & that the difference in all-up
weight was due largely to the incredibly clunky Karlisch riggers & the
lightness of the throw-away polystyrene Carbo seats. Swap all the
removable fittings & the Karlisch became correspondingly lighter than
the Carbo! Burnell's published results were such a nasty poke in the
eye for the Carbocraft techno-bullshit that the firm soon went bust (for
the first time of 3!), to the permanent loss of its original investors.
Vigurs went on, unabashed, to a series of other unsuccessful ventures,
but not within rowing. A cautionary tale indeed.

I think I may safely rest my case - unless anyone wants to hear more?
Never was the ancient Latin instruction, "Caveat Emptor" (let the buyer
beware), more relevant than when, to promote his wares, a vendor has to
hide his past & lie about & defame his competitors.

Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
Email: ***@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: [phone] Fax: -466550
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)

[m***@carr12331.freeserve.co.uk]

>
> So who's wound you this time Carl ?

Whilst I dont particularly care whether your story is true or not you
are no doubt aware that John Vigurs is no longer with us and as a
result cannot answer any of your allegations in this forum or elsewhere


Or is it perhaps because of that fact you can so free and easy with
your damming comments ?

[Carl Douglas]

***@carr12331.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
>>So who's wound you this time Carl ?
>

Nicely selective quoting there, Martin ;)

>
> Whilst I dont particularly care whether your story is true or not you
> are no doubt aware that John Vigurs is no longer with us and as a
> result cannot answer any of your allegations in this forum or elsewhere
>
>
> Or is it perhaps because of that fact you can so free and easy with
> your damming comments ?
>

I'm surprised that you don't care whether a story is true or not.

Facts matter, & I stick to facts. Over the last 30 years I've taken
more personal risks than most to expose shoddy dealing in this sport
which their authors would much have preferred went unknown. Hence
that's a particularly cheap & unwarranted slur when you slyly imply
that, had John Vigurs been alive, I'd not have written as I did. You
know, & know too bloody well, that I would have done so. Indeed, you
seem to forget, & so quickly too, that it was precisely because I
exposed Vigurs' scam that I received those 3 promises of libel writs.

FYI, I knew John Vigurs. We were members of the same club & on good
first-name terms. I observed his career, both in rowing & in business.
And I kept getting reports of his doings from mutual friends, from the
Carbo collapse up to the day of his death, & beyond. Would that his
business career had gone as well as his rowing. That'd have saved a lot
of innocent folk a lot of pain.

So, what case are you really trying to knock together on such poor ground?

If we're not to mention the damaging acts of the departed, then most of
history would be erased. Would you prefer we just "forgot" the
Carbocraft history - that it remained a closed book? Carbocraft was
John Vigurs & he was Carbocraft - until it crashed, that is. Would you
really prefer that we sanitised the tale & ignored the lessons, despite
the damage done to so many creditors of so many ventures on the way?

BTW, it was Vigurs' Carbocraft that began the dirty old game of ripping
off the products of others, the very thing which so winds up Gunther.
Every Carbo was made in moulds flop-copied from boats in the ARA
boathouse - all spirited out for that purpose with ARA blessing. And it
may amuse you to know that, on that one count at least, I find myself in
complete agreement with Gunther. Now let's go one stage further in that
agreement: there is everything right about a guy designing his own boats
rather than stealing the shapes from others; there is everything right
in him launching a company to build those boats. I wish all success to
any entrepreneur who will do that - it isn't an easy road.

What I detest, & what you too should detest, Martin, is the deliberate &
damaging slagging off by CRS of the works of everyone else, the spouting
of bogus technospeak & the claiming of that to which they can lay no
honest claim. It isn't necessary. It shouldn't happen. And the market
should be thrice wary when it is done.

Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
Email: ***@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: [phone] Fax: -466550
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)

[s***@btinternet.com]

Dear Carl,

Everybody who is not telling obscure storeys or attacking CRS gets from
you an outranging poisoning attack. Even Ian who tested the boat and
spoke absolutely neutral but positive got a mouth full.

What's going on in your brain? I'm wondering what the reason may
be. I came to the conclusion there are only tow possibilities.

Either you been a shareholder of 2kV, lost some money and the new
adventure goes on without you and you now attacking CRS in any way you
can?

Or you realised for yourself there is a strong competition growing up
which is far more advanced, as you can like. Your designs have been
revolutionary 20 years ago. But time may have overtaken you now. You
stick to your design and rigger system. Modern boats have wing rigger,
which have many advantages. Even good old conservative German Empacher
in company with Hudson, Vespoli, Filippi . . . . changed to wing
rigger system and the days you had your advert in Regatta Magazine
congratulating Oxford or Cambridge to the win of the Boat Race 19??
with AeRoWing rigger are over. They row now wing rigger systems and
Regatta Magazine is now 'Rowing & regatta'.
You may realise to become covered with the dust of the past and
attacking everything new like a wound animal. Grumpy old man. Your mind
is poisoned by hate.

I'm not going any further in this discussion. It's not worth it. I
hope CRS goes his way and we rower will be supplied with great boats. I
had one in the past and will be a proud owner of such a vehicle
hopefully soon!
Your poisoned attacks will not change my mind and hopefully not that of
others.

Simon

Carl Douglas wrote:
> ***@carr12331.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
> >>So who's wound you this time Carl ?
> >
>
> Nicely selective quoting there, Martin ;)
>
> >
> > Whilst I dont particularly care whether your story is true or not you
> > are no doubt aware that John Vigurs is no longer with us and as a
> > result cannot answer any of your allegations in this forum or elsewhere
> >
> >
> > Or is it perhaps because of that fact you can so free and easy with
> > your damming comments ?
> >
>
> I'm surprised that you don't care whether a story is true or not.
>
> Facts matter, & I stick to facts. Over the last 30 years I've taken
> more personal risks than most to expose shoddy dealing in this sport
> which their authors would much have preferred went unknown. Hence
> that's a particularly cheap & unwarranted slur when you slyly imply
> that, had John Vigurs been alive, I'd not have written as I did. You
> know, & know too bloody well, that I would have done so. Indeed, you
> seem to forget, & so quickly too, that it was precisely because I
> exposed Vigurs' scam that I received those 3 promises of libel writs.
>
> FYI, I knew John Vigurs. We were members of the same club & on good
> first-name terms. I observed his career, both in rowing & in business.
> And I kept getting reports of his doings from mutual friends, from the
> Carbo collapse up to the day of his death, & beyond. Would that his
> business career had gone as well as his rowing. That'd have saved a lot
> of innocent folk a lot of pain.
>
> So, what case are you really trying to knock together on such poor ground?
>
> If we're not to mention the damaging acts of the departed, then most of
> history would be erased. Would you prefer we just "forgot" the
> Carbocraft history - that it remained a closed book? Carbocraft was
> John Vigurs & he was Carbocraft - until it crashed, that is. Would you
> really prefer that we sanitised the tale & ignored the lessons, despite
> the damage done to so many creditors of so many ventures on the way?
>
> BTW, it was Vigurs' Carbocraft that began the dirty old game of ripping
> off the products of others, the very thing which so winds up Gunther.
> Every Carbo was made in moulds flop-copied from boats in the ARA
> boathouse - all spirited out for that purpose with ARA blessing. And it
> may amuse you to know that, on that one count at least, I find myself in
> complete agreement with Gunther. Now let's go one stage further in that
> agreement: there is everything right about a guy designing his own boats
> rather than stealing the shapes from others; there is everything right
> in him launching a company to build those boats. I wish all success to
> any entrepreneur who will do that - it isn't an easy road.
>
> What I detest, & what you too should detest, Martin, is the deliberate &
> damaging slagging off by CRS of the works of everyone else, the spouting
> of bogus technospeak & the claiming of that to which they can lay no
> honest claim. It isn't necessary. It shouldn't happen. And the market
> should be thrice wary when it is done.
>
> Carl
> --
> Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
> Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
> Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
> Email: ***@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: [phone] Fax: -466550
> URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)

[Carl]

***@btinternet.com wrote:
> Dear Carl,
>
> Everybody who is not telling obscure storeys or attacking CRS gets from
> you an outranging poisoning attack. Even Ian who tested the boat and
> spoke absolutely neutral but positive got a mouth full.
>
> What's going on in your brain? I'm wondering what the reason may
> be. I came to the conclusion there are only tow possibilities.
>
> Either you been a shareholder of 2kV, lost some money and the new
> adventure goes on without you and you now attacking CRS in any way you
> can?
>
> Or you realised for yourself there is a strong competition growing up
> which is far more advanced, as you can like. Your designs have been
> revolutionary 20 years ago. But time may have overtaken you now. You
> stick to your design and rigger system. Modern boats have wing rigger,
> which have many advantages. Even good old conservative German Empacher
> in company with Hudson, Vespoli, Filippi . . . . changed to wing
> rigger system and the days you had your advert in Regatta Magazine
> congratulating Oxford or Cambridge to the win of the Boat Race 19??
> with AeRoWing rigger are over. They row now wing rigger systems and
> Regatta Magazine is now 'Rowing & regatta'.
> You may realise to become covered with the dust of the past and
> attacking everything new like a wound animal. Grumpy old man. Your mind
> is poisoned by hate.
>
> I'm not going any further in this discussion. It's not worth it. I
> hope CRS goes his way and we rower will be supplied with great boats. I
> had one in the past and will be a proud owner of such a vehicle
> hopefully soon!
> Your poisoned attacks will not change my mind and hopefully not that of
> others.
>
> Simon

What a pity, Simon, that you share the vituperative characteristics of
the combined forces of the old 2kv & the new CRS websites.

Still, despite all your mock indignation & ad hominem abuse, you have
not answered the point that I have made: is it OK for a company to
promote its products on the basis of lies & defamation?

I have to assume, from all you have written, that you think it is.

Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
Email: ***@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: [phone] Fax: -466550
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)

[Johannes Andersen]

Dear Carl, Stelph and others who have added to the fire:

You are way out of line here - and behaving in a manner not suitable in this
otherwise informative newsgroup!

First Stelph, if you are the builder of the Stelph boats (I have just google’d
the webpage). You have absolutely no reason to point fingers at other
boatbuilders webpages. Someone used a good name for what your boats look
like earlier this thread. I will just add, that if I wanted an Empacher, I
would go for the original. Or you should state where your product is
different/better, so I can chose.



As for the the rest, there is so much “I think – I guess – I may have
heard – I don’t like him…” hot air - that it cries to the heaven. You are
playing with the possible or impossible future of a hardworking
boatbuilder – just for the fun of it. Shame on you!

For any starting enterprise the edge between success and failure is very
narrow and the deciding factor may easily be a well plotted slander campain.
We all know how easy it is to start a fire on the internet, and it is next
to impossible to make any self-defence. But maybe this is the very reason
for the initial post by Stelph and the persistent follow-up’s by Carl?



I remember a thread on RSR a few years back, where Carl complained about the
unfair competition from cheap chinese boatyards which were endangering the
western boatbuilders who had to pay high salaries, taxes and follow
environmental rules and regulations etc.

It seems to me that the worst danger to western (or UK) boatbuilders may
come from the back-biting from their nearest colleages. Think about that for
a while.

I have met Günther Borutta a couple of times and I have never heard him talk
badly about his competitors. In fact he is an extremely agreeable person. He
may have been disappointed that the dominating boatbuilders would not listen
to his ideas and this in the end made his start his own boatbuilding which I
think is a far more constructive reaction than sitting complaining about
others - like grumpy old men!



Just to explain my background for commenting the subject, I can tell you, my
club is the happy owner of 2 boats build by Günther Borutta, 2kV. A four and
an eight and these boats are everything the boatbuilder promised us. They
are as strong today as the day they left the boatyard.

If I should comment upon the many sarcastic hints to the guarantee claims, I
could say that the hulls have proven to be as strong as promised - and
stronger than the company who build them.

I am sure it was not the wish of the boatbuilder that the 2kV project should
have a sad ending. I know GB worked his hart out trying to fulfill the
demands of his customers and suppliers but when his ressources ran out the
adventure had to end. And in such a situation there will be someone
suffering financial losses. Sadly. But then it is easy play for anybody who
find a joy in gloating....

This time however the fundation looks better. A group of rowers who know GB
and believe in his boats have asked him to start building his unique boats
again and are funding the company. You should all respect this.

With the proper backup this time I hope we will see a strong and viable boat
building company. For the benefit of rowing! Rowers come in all sizes,
proportions and rowing styles, so why should all boats be alike? But do give
the man a chance! And let the rowers have the choice.



I was quite confused by the post by Sarah who claimed she had seen a CRS “in
the flesh” without underseat buoyancy when the webpage clearly says that all
CRS boats have underseat buoyancy. So instead of listening to gossip I wrote
to GB and asked how this could happen.

The explanation I got was that last year the club was offered a prototype
boat for evaluation. This boat was only equipped with the bare necessities.
A seat and a rigging. And in the end the club was so happy for the boat that
they asked to buy the boat. So Sarah’s “horror story” is actually about a
club who could not await the real thing.

I fear this was an unwise decision by BG to let the club have the prototype,
since peoples memory tend to be very short and now this boat – even if sold
in a good intention - have already been used as an example of a substandard
product. And I believe some of the stories we hear about the 2kV boats may
also be about experimental prototype boats. As I said earlier, the boats I
have are mature “production” boats of very high quality. I have seen a
couple of the latest 2kV boats and they were very beautiful, so I am looking
very much forward to see the new generation of boats. It is very obvious
that GB learns from his experiences. As I hope other boatbuilders do!



I want to propose a challenge to the readers of RSR. If any of you consider
yourself an objective reporter and live in the neigbourhood then do us all a
favour and visit the people at Cambridge Rowing Shells Limited – and test
the boats. If they feel different from what you are used to then take the
time to find out if different means better, worse or just different. And
finally enlighten us all with your findings, so the readers can make their
own conclusion about whether these boats may be a good choice for each of
us.



Best regards,

Johannes Andersen

[Sarah F]

Johannes Andersen wrote:

> > I was quite confused by the post by Sarah who claimed she had seen a CRS "in
> the flesh" without underseat buoyancy when the webpage clearly says that all
> CRS boats have underseat buoyancy. So instead of listening to gossip I wrote
> to GB and asked how this could happen.
>
> The explanation I got was that last year the club was offered a prototype
> boat for evaluation. This boat was only equipped with the bare necessities.
> A seat and a rigging. And in the end the club was so happy for the boat that
> they asked to buy the boat. So Sarah's "horror story" is actually about a
> club who could not await the real thing.
>

Hang on a minute. My old club did NOT buy the boat - the club does not
have any money to buy ANY boats, which is why that is not true! It was
on loan from Gunther (AFAIK he wanted our club to use the boat to get
CRS exposure - it was used for about 4 weeks uptil WeHoRR). I haven't
seen any of the other boats from them, and I never claimed to have
done. It sounds as though someone has got thier wires crossed...

Sarah

[Sarah F]

On a completely different note, would it be more constructive for
supporters of CRS and Gunther to take on board the criticisms about the
website and try to help/suggest to CRS that they tone it all down and
stop making what have been quoted as 'outlandish' statements. That way,
the boats WILL speak for themselves and the critics will be silenced.

Just a thought, but there are a lot of companies selling things on the
internet (and I'm not just talking about rowing-related products) whose
websites sort of let them down one way or another. Maybe its because it
really does look too good to be true, or because its a bit too
techo-babble for most people. Personally I think its much easier to be
tuned into a product when the advertising and descriptions for it are
uncomplicated and don't try to drown a person out with phrases that
they can't understand, etc. Thats not to say that good advertising
doesn't always contain phrases with 'spin', because sometimes this can
be effective.

I don't know if that makes sense. It's just a thought.
Sarah

[Michael Walker]

Sarah F wrote:

> Hang on a minute. My old club did NOT buy the boat - the club does not
> have any money to buy ANY boats, which is why that is not true! It was
> on loan from Gunther (AFAIK he wanted our club to use the boat to get
> CRS exposure - it was used for about 4 weeks uptil WeHoRR). I haven't
> seen any of the other boats from them, and I never claimed to have
> done. It sounds as though someone has got thier wires crossed...
>
> Sarah

Sarah - Are you talking about the turquoise-y coloured heavy-weight
men's eight? Because if so, it was loaned out to at least two clubs
(which is how I got to row in it). Perhaps that is where the
wire-crossing has arisen, as I doubt it would have been suitable as a
women's boat. Although possibly I have misapprehended you when you
refer to WeHORR?

[Sarah F]

Michael Walker wrote:

> Sarah F wrote:
>
> > Hang on a minute. My old club did NOT buy the boat - the club does not
> > have any money to buy ANY boats, which is why that is not true! It was
> > on loan from Gunther (AFAIK he wanted our club to use the boat to get
> > CRS exposure - it was used for about 4 weeks uptil WeHoRR). I haven't
> > seen any of the other boats from them, and I never claimed to have
> > done. It sounds as though someone has got thier wires crossed...
> >
> > Sarah
>
> Sarah - Are you talking about the turquoise-y coloured heavy-weight
> men's eight? Because if so, it was loaned out to at least two clubs
> (which is how I got to row in it). Perhaps that is where the
> wire-crossing has arisen, as I doubt it would have been suitable as a
> women's boat. Although possibly I have misapprehended you when you
> refer to WeHORR?


I don't know if it was a men's VIII (I didn't see the weight plate in
it) but it was turquoise, with a white interior, and turquoise seats.
It was used by a hwt womens crew for WeHoRR.

Sarah

[n***@aol.com]

Sarah F wrote:
> Johannes Andersen wrote:
>
> > The explanation I got was that last year the club was offered a prototype
> > boat for evaluation. This boat was only equipped with the bare necessities.
> > A seat and a rigging. And in the end the club was so happy for the boat that
> > they asked to buy the boat. So Sarah's "horror story" is actually about a
> > club who could not await the real thing.
> >
>
> Hang on a minute. My old club did NOT buy the boat - the club does not
> have any money to buy ANY boats, which is why that is not true! It was
> on loan from Gunther (AFAIK he wanted our club to use the boat to get
> CRS exposure - it was used for about 4 weeks uptil WeHoRR). I haven't
> seen any of the other boats from them, and I never claimed to have
> done. It sounds as though someone has got thier wires crossed...
>
> Sarah

I think I'm getting confused here as well. Is this the light blue VIII
used by X-Press we're talking about? If so, it's been used regularly by
their men for quite a while, and was out last Sunday. From what I've
heard - and yes, this is hearsay, so feel free to disregard it -
they're about to take delivery of a 'real' one, with whatever buoyancy
provision is in the latest version, to replace it, which indicates that
it meets the requirements of at least one crew. No, I've not been in
it; no, I'm not going to comment on it.

[Michael Walker]

***@aol.com wrote:
>
> I think I'm getting confused here as well. Is this the light blue VIII
> used by X-Press we're talking about? If so, it's been used regularly by
> their men for quite a while, and was out last Sunday. From what I've
> heard - and yes, this is hearsay, so feel free to disregard it -
> they're about to take delivery of a 'real' one, with whatever buoyancy
> provision is in the latest version, to replace it, which indicates that
> it meets the requirements of at least one crew. No, I've not been in
> it; no, I'm not going to comment on it.

Yes - that's the one, and I think it must be the same one as Sarah was
talking about, too. I know the Press folks think highly of it and at
least one of them has told me that it definitely (In his opinion!)
gives them an edge when compared to their previous shell. As I said
before, I am not qualified to judge on the physics involved, but anyone
can read a stop-watch, so I guess they probably have evidence of a sort
to back that up.

[Carl]

Johannes Andersen wrote:
> Dear Carl, Stelph and others who have added to the fire:
>
> You are way out of line here - and behaving in a manner not suitable in this
> otherwise informative newsgroup!

You always know when someone has lost the plot when they begin a posting
by telling you that what you have written is not fit for this NG.

Actually, Johannes, I have not abused anyone. Read carefully back
through what I have posted, & you will find that I have dealt only with
verifiable fact
>
> First Stelph, if you are the builder of the Stelph boats (I have just google’d
> the webpage).

No, AFAIK he isn't.

You have absolutely no reason to point fingers at other
> boatbuilders webpages. Someone used a good name for what your boats look
> like earlier this thread. I will just add, that if I wanted an Empacher, I
> would go for the original. Or you should state where your product is
> different/better, so I can chose.

You are wasting your breath there in insulting yet another boatbuilder.
Why?
>
>
>
> As for the the rest, there is so much “I think – I guess – I may have
> heard – I don’t like him…” hot air - that it cries to the heaven. You are
> playing with the possible or impossible future of a hardworking
> boatbuilder – just for the fun of it. Shame on you!

In rowing we like to start a race level, we race hard & we disqualify
those who cheat or abuse. I realise that business often has lower
ethical standards, but the fact that someone may work hard still does
not entitle them to abuse their well-established competitors.

I really do wish some highly aerated & partisan followers of the new CRS
(& I see nothing wrong with partisanship) would go away and see how
anyone can justify the rankly derogatory statements on the new CRS & the
old 2kv websites. They are from the same source, of the same flavour, &
equally unsavoury & unacceptable.


>
> For any starting enterprise the edge between success and failure is very
> narrow and the deciding factor may easily be a well plotted slander campain.
> We all know how easy it is to start a fire on the internet, and it is next
> to impossible to make any self-defence. But maybe this is the very reason
> for the initial post by Stelph and the persistent follow-up’s by Carl?
>
>
So why do you add fuel to that fire? Why not take a deep breath, read
what is actually there, rather than what you think is there, & then we
can have a reasoned discussion?

The only valid defence for what has been written is that it is factual.
If you can show that everything said on the 2kv & CRS websites has
been factual, then you have made your case and those of us who argued
otherwise will accept it. Mere hot air & insults will get you nowhere.

>
> I remember a thread on RSR a few years back, where Carl complained about the
> unfair competition from cheap chinese boatyards which were endangering the
> western boatbuilders who had to pay high salaries, taxes and follow
> environmental rules and regulations etc.
>
> It seems to me that the worst danger to western (or UK) boatbuilders may
> come from the back-biting from their nearest colleages. Think about that for
> a while.

Then ask yourself: which new company has a website which attacks what
its established competitors do?

>
> I have met Günther Borutta a couple of times and I have never heard him talk
> badly about his competitors. In fact he is an extremely agreeable person. He
> may have been disappointed that the dominating boatbuilders would not listen
> to his ideas and this in the end made his start his own boatbuilding which I
> think is a far more constructive reaction than sitting complaining about
> others - like grumpy old men!

I am aware that Gunther thought that established builders should follow
his advice. That is a fair enough view far him to take. However, they
have no duty to do what he advises, & he has no right to complain if
they ignore his advice. Only Gunther has seen that as a problem.

>
> Just to explain my background for commenting the subject, I can tell you, my
> club is the happy owner of 2 boats build by Günther Borutta, 2kV. A four and
> an eight and these boats are everything the boatbuilder promised us. They
> are as strong today as the day they left the boatyard.

Now that carries more meaning than everything you have said so far.
Unfortunately, & I regret this fact, your experience does not match that
of some others.

>
> If I should comment upon the many sarcastic hints to the guarantee claims, I
> could say that the hulls have proven to be as strong as promised - and
> stronger than the company who build them.
>
> I am sure it was not the wish of the boatbuilder that the 2kV project should
> have a sad ending. I know GB worked his hart out trying to fulfill the
> demands of his customers and suppliers but when his ressources ran out the
> adventure had to end. And in such a situation there will be someone
> suffering financial losses. Sadly. But then it is easy play for anybody who
> find a joy in gloating....

Oddly enough, I take no pleasure in any business failure. It is you who
thinks people are gloating, but in fact the loss of any new venture is
to be regretted.

However, if that new venture has spent a lot of effort on insulting the
materials, motivation & products of those with whom it seeks to compete,
it will earn much less sympathy than otherwise. And the manner of its
going will also cause concern when it is reborn with all the old,
offensive rhetoric.

>
> This time however the fundation looks better. A group of rowers who know GB
> and believe in his boats have asked him to start building his unique boats
> again and are funding the company. You should all respect this.
>
> With the proper backup this time I hope we will see a strong and viable boat
> building company. For the benefit of rowing! Rowers come in all sizes,
> proportions and rowing styles, so why should all boats be alike? But do give
> the man a chance! And let the rowers have the choice.
>

Again, Gunther is welcome to as many chances as investors will pay for.
If he succeeds this time, that will be good. But the market has a
right to know the background to his previous venture. And I would have
more respect for people who did not so naively think that what someone
did last time had no relevance to his next venture. That's why, after
being sniped at rather more than was reasonable for questioning
Gunther's unfortunate habit of attacking everyone else in the trade, I
thought it necessary to point out that another new business had had a
rather similar past. How sad that some of my critics lack the
objectivity to take such information on board.

That some of us built our businesses up from the ground, with entirely
original designs & product ranges & without a penny of outside
investment, kept their business afloat in difficult times by careful
planning & plain hard work & never wrecked the finances of a single
individual indicates that there can be more than one valid way to start
a business.
>
>
> I was quite confused by the post by Sarah who claimed she had seen a CRS “in
> the flesh” without underseat buoyancy when the webpage clearly says that all
> CRS boats have underseat buoyancy. So instead of listening to gossip I wrote
> to GB and asked how this could happen.
>
> The explanation I got was that last year the club was offered a prototype
> boat for evaluation. This boat was only equipped with the bare necessities.
> A seat and a rigging. And in the end the club was so happy for the boat that
> they asked to buy the boat. So Sarah’s “horror story” is actually about a
> club who could not await the real thing.
>
> I fear this was an unwise decision by BG to let the club have the prototype,
> since peoples memory tend to be very short and now this boat – even if sold
> in a good intention - have already been used as an example of a substandard
> product. And I believe some of the stories we hear about the 2kV boats may
> also be about experimental prototype boats. As I said earlier, the boats I
> have are mature “production” boats of very high quality. I have seen a
> couple of the latest 2kV boats and they were very beautiful, so I am looking
> very much forward to see the new generation of boats. It is very obvious
> that GB learns from his experiences. As I hope other boatbuilders do!

You recognise there that people do get the wrong end of the stick from
time to time ;) You may not have seen that in a posting a few weeks ago
I acknowledged the possibility of CRS making an eight so buoyant that,
like a single, it sinks very little lower when swamped. That is all to
the good.

>
> I want to propose a challenge to the readers of RSR. If any of you consider
> yourself an objective reporter and live in the neigbourhood then do us all a
> favour and visit the people at Cambridge Rowing Shells Limited – and test
> the boats. If they feel different from what you are used to then take the
> time to find out if different means better, worse or just different. And
> finally enlighten us all with your findings, so the readers can make their
> own conclusion about whether these boats may be a good choice for each of
> us.
>

That's entirely fair. And so very much better than all that
knocking-copy nonsense on the CRS website - to which I & others have
drawn attention & for daring so to do have been so unreasonable attacked
by you and a few others.

It wouldn't take long to delete that offensive, dishonest material from
the CRS website. So why not see if you can get that done. Then we can
all compete in a hard but fair manner.

Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
Email: ***@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: [phone] Fax: -466550
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)

[a***@aol.com]

Carl wrote:
> Johannes Andersen wrote:
> > Dear Carl, Stelph and others who have added to the fire:
> >
> > You are way out of line here - and behaving in a manner not suitable in this
> > otherwise informative newsgroup!
>
> You always know when someone has lost the plot when they begin a posting
> by telling you that what you have written is not fit for this NG.
>
> Actually, Johannes, I have not abused anyone. Read carefully back
> through what I have posted, & you will find that I have dealt only with
> verifiable fact
> >
> > First Stelph, if you are the builder of the Stelph boats (I have just google'd
> > the webpage).
>
> No, AFAIK he isn't.
>
> You have absolutely no reason to point fingers at other
> > boatbuilders webpages. Someone used a good name for what your boats look
> > like earlier this thread. I will just add, that if I wanted an Empacher, I
> > would go for the original. Or you should state where your product is
> > different/better, so I can chose.
>
> You are wasting your breath there in insulting yet another boatbuilder.
> Why?
> >
> >
> >
> > As for the the rest, there is so much "I think - I guess - I may have
> > heard - I don't like him..." hot air - that it cries to the heaven. You are
> > playing with the possible or impossible future of a hardworking
> > boatbuilder - just for the fun of it. Shame on you!
>
> In rowing we like to start a race level, we race hard & we disqualify
> those who cheat or abuse. I realise that business often has lower
> ethical standards, but the fact that someone may work hard still does
> not entitle them to abuse their well-established competitors.
>
> I really do wish some highly aerated & partisan followers of the new CRS
> (& I see nothing wrong with partisanship) would go away and see how
> anyone can justify the rankly derogatory statements on the new CRS & the
> old 2kv websites. They are from the same source, of the same flavour, &
> equally unsavoury & unacceptable.
>
>
> >
> > For any starting enterprise the edge between success and failure is very
> > narrow and the deciding factor may easily be a well plotted slander campain.
> > We all know how easy it is to start a fire on the internet, and it is next
> > to impossible to make any self-defence. But maybe this is the very reason
> > for the initial post by Stelph and the persistent follow-up's by Carl?
> >
> >
> So why do you add fuel to that fire? Why not take a deep breath, read
> what is actually there, rather than what you think is there, & then we
> can have a reasoned discussion?
>
> The only valid defence for what has been written is that it is factual.
> If you can show that everything said on the 2kv & CRS websites has
> been factual, then you have made your case and those of us who argued
> otherwise will accept it. Mere hot air & insults will get you nowhere.
>
> >
> > I remember a thread on RSR a few years back, where Carl complained about the
> > unfair competition from cheap chinese boatyards which were endangering the
> > western boatbuilders who had to pay high salaries, taxes and follow
> > environmental rules and regulations etc.
> >
> > It seems to me that the worst danger to western (or UK) boatbuilders may
> > come from the back-biting from their nearest colleages. Think about that for
> > a while.
>
> Then ask yourself: which new company has a website which attacks what
> its established competitors do?
>
> >
> > I have met Günther Borutta a couple of times and I have never heard him talk
> > badly about his competitors. In fact he is an extremely agreeable person. He
> > may have been disappointed that the dominating boatbuilders would not listen
> > to his ideas and this in the end made his start his own boatbuilding which I
> > think is a far more constructive reaction than sitting complaining about
> > others - like grumpy old men!
>
> I am aware that Gunther thought that established builders should follow
> his advice. That is a fair enough view far him to take. However, they
> have no duty to do what he advises, & he has no right to complain if
> they ignore his advice. Only Gunther has seen that as a problem.
>
> >
> > Just to explain my background for commenting the subject, I can tell you, my
> > club is the happy owner of 2 boats build by Günther Borutta, 2kV. A four and
> > an eight and these boats are everything the boatbuilder promised us. They
> > are as strong today as the day they left the boatyard.
>
> Now that carries more meaning than everything you have said so far.
> Unfortunately, & I regret this fact, your experience does not match that
> of some others.
>
> >
> > If I should comment upon the many sarcastic hints to the guarantee claims, I
> > could say that the hulls have proven to be as strong as promised - and
> > stronger than the company who build them.
> >
> > I am sure it was not the wish of the boatbuilder that the 2kV project should
> > have a sad ending. I know GB worked his hart out trying to fulfill the
> > demands of his customers and suppliers but when his ressources ran out the
> > adventure had to end. And in such a situation there will be someone
> > suffering financial losses. Sadly. But then it is easy play for anybody who
> > find a joy in gloating....
>
> Oddly enough, I take no pleasure in any business failure. It is you who
> thinks people are gloating, but in fact the loss of any new venture is
> to be regretted.
>
> However, if that new venture has spent a lot of effort on insulting the
> materials, motivation & products of those with whom it seeks to compete,
> it will earn much less sympathy than otherwise. And the manner of its
> going will also cause concern when it is reborn with all the old,
> offensive rhetoric.
>
> >
> > This time however the fundation looks better. A group of rowers who know GB
> > and believe in his boats have asked him to start building his unique boats
> > again and are funding the company. You should all respect this.
> >
> > With the proper backup this time I hope we will see a strong and viable boat
> > building company. For the benefit of rowing! Rowers come in all sizes,
> > proportions and rowing styles, so why should all boats be alike? But do give
> > the man a chance! And let the rowers have the choice.
> >
>
> Again, Gunther is welcome to as many chances as investors will pay for.
> If he succeeds this time, that will be good. But the market has a
> right to know the background to his previous venture. And I would have
> more respect for people who did not so naively think that what someone
> did last time had no relevance to his next venture. That's why, after
> being sniped at rather more than was reasonable for questioning
> Gunther's unfortunate habit of attacking everyone else in the trade, I
> thought it necessary to point out that another new business had had a
> rather similar past. How sad that some of my critics lack the
> objectivity to take such information on board.
>
> That some of us built our businesses up from the ground, with entirely
> original designs & product ranges & without a penny of outside
> investment, kept their business afloat in difficult times by careful
> planning & plain hard work & never wrecked the finances of a single
> individual indicates that there can be more than one valid way to start
> a business.
> >
> >
> > I was quite confused by the post by Sarah who claimed she had seen a CRS "in
> > the flesh" without underseat buoyancy when the webpage clearly says that all
> > CRS boats have underseat buoyancy. So instead of listening to gossip I wrote
> > to GB and asked how this could happen.
> >
> > The explanation I got was that last year the club was offered a prototype
> > boat for evaluation. This boat was only equipped with the bare necessities.
> > A seat and a rigging. And in the end the club was so happy for the boat that
> > they asked to buy the boat. So Sarah's "horror story" is actually about a
> > club who could not await the real thing.
> >
> > I fear this was an unwise decision by BG to let the club have the prototype,
> > since peoples memory tend to be very short and now this boat - even if sold
> > in a good intention - have already been used as an example of a substandard
> > product. And I believe some of the stories we hear about the 2kV boats may
> > also be about experimental prototype boats. As I said earlier, the boats I
> > have are mature "production" boats of very high quality. I have seen a
> > couple of the latest 2kV boats and they were very beautiful, so I am looking
> > very much forward to see the new generation of boats. It is very obvious
> > that GB learns from his experiences. As I hope other boatbuilders do!
>
> You recognise there that people do get the wrong end of the stick from
> time to time ;) You may not have seen that in a posting a few weeks ago
> I acknowledged the possibility of CRS making an eight so buoyant that,
> like a single, it sinks very little lower when swamped. That is all to
> the good.
>
> >
> > I want to propose a challenge to the readers of RSR. If any of you consider
> > yourself an objective reporter and live in the neigbourhood then do us all a
> > favour and visit the people at Cambridge Rowing Shells Limited - and test
> > the boats. If they feel different from what you are used to then take the
> > time to find out if different means better, worse or just different. And
> > finally enlighten us all with your findings, so the readers can make their
> > own conclusion about whether these boats may be a good choice for each of
> > us.
> >
>
> That's entirely fair. And so very much better than all that
> knocking-copy nonsense on the CRS website - to which I & others have
> drawn attention & for daring so to do have been so unreasonable attacked
> by you and a few others.
>
> It wouldn't take long to delete that offensive, dishonest material from
> the CRS website. So why not see if you can get that done. Then we can
> all compete in a hard but fair manner.
>
> Carl
> --
> Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
> Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
> Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
> Email: ***@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: [phone] Fax: -466550
> URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)

Such is the nature of Economics that Demand and Supply will come to the
rescue here.

If the boats are good, they will sell, if they are not, they will go
bust. I have always said that the bulk of rowers and clubs do not read
RSR so this discussion will not affect sales as such.

Carl's product is undoubtedly excellent, be it boat, rigger or
otherwise. That's why he is still around today. I f the CRS product is
not good, word of mouth will kill it dead in the water....

Track record would suggest that CRS is flawed but we wait and see. To
whoever is running it, they WILL know from past experience that a poor
product will see them closing the business quickly.

[Stelph]

Johannes Andersen wrote:

> Dear Carl, Stelph and others who have added to the fire:
>
> You are way out of line here - and behaving in a manner not suitable in this
> otherwise informative newsgroup!
>
> First Stelph, if you are the builder of the Stelph boats (I have just google'd
> the webpage). You have absolutely no reason to point fingers at other
> boatbuilders webpages. Someone used a good name for what your boats look
> like earlier this thread. I will just add, that if I wanted an Empacher, I
> would go for the original. Or you should state where your product is
> different/better, so I can chose.


Sorry, just to clarify I have no connection to Stelph boats at all (I
can understand how the mistake was made), i just posted the original
point in order to get any input from others about these boats!

I totally didnt mean to stir up the hornets nest that seems to have
appeared after my original post, I was just confused by what I thought
to be contradictory statements, like the one that says that their boats
had "smaller wetted surfaces and were more stable", and wanted to find
out more

[Johannes Andersen]

Off-Topic: I have just been to the theatre to watch “The Mariage of Figaro”.
An exelent play with so many intriques and misconceptions that it almost
rivals R.S.R. ;-)

Back to topic:
First of all: english is not my native language, so I may not use the right
words and I may read differently than some of you “between the lines”. But I
do not think I am wrong in sensing a very bitter tone in this debate. And I
am also quite sure that I am not the only (at least non-english) reader in
this newsgroup that finds the general tone is clouding the message.

Next: I am not saying the history of 2kV is irrelevant. On the contrary! 2kV
is the very reason I expect the CRS boats to be exiting. It is the same
designer so I expect/demand the ideas behind the boats to be the same - or
improved versions. (Just see the beautiful pictures of the 1X – this is no
sloppy handwork!)

I don't see the CRS webpage is denying the fact, that this is not the first
time Günther has been engaged in a boatbuilding adventure. Even if the exact
name "2kV" is not mentioned for all webcrawlers to index. Why should he? 2kV
went down and is history. From which I'm certain Günther learned a lot. I
find the “About Us” page nice and honest about the history. Even though we
have to recognize that english is not GB’s native tongue either.
As I said, I am very sorry for anyone who might have lost money in this
crash but I will not accept anyone holding this against Günther as if he is
a swindler. For me that would imply coaxing money from a lot of customers
and then run away to Canada with the money for a high society life.
(I think a german boatbuilder "Loewe" did just that!)

Günther did the opposite. He fighted all the way down trying to keep the
company afloat. I know; I may be the last customer that mamaged to get a
boat. It was not a pleasant time for anybody involved.
But I am sure the one who lost the most in the crash of 2kV was Günther
himself. His personal money, his dream and appearently he earned himself a
lot of enemies. (But I begin to get the feeling the enemies emerged long
before the crash…) There were no personal windings by GB!
Now a group of investors have talked GB into a comeback. I am very happy for
this and I hope the group will succeed in creating what a one-man army could
not!

A note on the ‘documentation’ on the webpage: For the many boatbuilders
making copies of some kind (Empacher, Karlish, VEB, etc) the world is very
simple. If someone asks about the properties of the boat, the answer can be:
“it’s just like Empacher” – meaning, “if it is good enough for them - it is
good enough for you!” (And ok; most of us have either seen og rowed an
Empacher. So we have a very good idea about what we get if we buy this type
of boat.)
For a designer drawing his boats from scratch he has to document everything
himself. And this is an almost impossible task. If too little is written it
is meaningless, and too much is also meaningless (for the main part of the
readers) = high tech mombo-jumbo. And if he tries to make a popular version
understandable by most of the readers there will always be the experts that
can prove that the popular version is only 99% correct. Ergo the proof has
fallen and the designer is wrong! The 2kV page tried to explain too much and
was criticized. Now the CRS page says a lot less – and is criticized for
lack of explaining. This is a battle that can not easily be won.

But I think I begin to understand from what Carl is saying - what may have
triggered the aversion from him and other boatbuilders.
If rephrasing a statement like: “The result is the minimal drag and maximum
speed of any rowing boat.” to “The boat is designed for absolute minimal
drag and maximum speed.” - will make everybody happy, I might just go for
Carls suggestion and give the webpage a close review and propose to CRS how
the most drastic statements could be made less definitive and offensive.
I have no doubt however, that BG is convinced the statement is true. (And it
just might be true - I don’t know!) As for the data comparisons (like the
numbers from FluidDesign) I find nothing wrong in comparing the numbers from
your boat against the best numbers available from the competitors. It
certainly is not dishonest unless the numbers are manipulated. And I hear no
protests from the companies referred to?
Is this interpretation of your words about rephrasing correct Carl? We need
an end to this dispute.


>> You may not have seen that in a posting a few weeks ago I acknowledged
>> the possibility of CRS making an eight so buoyant that, like a single, it
>> sinks very little lower when swamped. That is all to the good.

Yes, Carl, I saw the posting and – again: it may be my poor understanding of
english – but I found it hard to see any positive acknowledgement nor praise
by reading your comment:

>> A suitably shaped 1-piece inner structural skin, enclosing large volumes
>> & providing only the necessary minimum of foot-space volume, can permit
>> such an outcome.
>> Sadly, it seems we've seen this lot before. A firm then known as 2KV
>> made similarly hyperbolic claims detrimental to established & respected
>> products - & then went pop. It left a nasty taste, some unhappy
>> suppliers & no grounds to trust a 5-year warranty.

As a true admirer of your heroic struggle for buoyancy (mind the tone,
though) and other safety issues the last years I must say I am disappointed!
When I read the comments above as well as your comments about the
selfbailing WinTech boat, I did not believe my eyes.
There is happening a very important thing right under our noses. And you –
of all people – cannot see it.
Now the word “buoyancy” is becoming the top sales argument on the front page
of several boatbuilders!
You should be proud – and celebrate! :-)
And even more: these boatbuilders are pushing the standards for safety even
higher than the proposed standards in the LeoBlockley Files. Self bailing
has been added – and CRS is providing so much buoyancy that at first you
didn’t believe the numbers.

I get the sad impression that you may be more engaged in your personal
dislike of certain boatbuilders than in the essential case of how to promote
buoyancy. Correct me, please. Why spank those who actually do what you want
them to do?
Will WinTech and CRS be put on the list of boatbuilders on the LeoBlockley
Site who can provide safe boats? Or is this a list just for friends of
friends?

Best regards,
Johannes Andersen

[S M]

Johannes Andersen wrote:

> If rephrasing a statement like: “The result is the minimal drag and maximum
> speed of any rowing boat.” to “The boat is designed for absolute minimal
> drag and maximum speed.” - will make everybody happy,

It's interesting to compare the fairly outlandish statements of CRS, who
may or may not have a great product, I won't weigh in on either side,
with those of another rowing manufacturer (other than CDR):

From the concept 2 page with regards to their innovative vortex edges:

"Although testing at Concept2 has shown a speed advantage using the
Vortex Edge, more testing needs to be done to confirm its universal
benefit. To this date there has been no negative response in terms of
speed or handling."

It just makes you think doesn't it.....

And just to further the discussion, and try and stear it clear of the
soap opera style personal diatribes that the topic has at times
descended to:

I think the point is not about the quality of the new product, but
rather two other things:

1) Providing a caveat emptor that the last lot of warranties that this
boat designer offered ended up being worthless as the company went bust.

This should clearly be taken as a warning not to have total faith in a
guarantee not independently backed, not an aspersion on the personal
character of the boat designer, builder, shareholders etc. as some have
taken it to be.

The second issue is one of marketing and more precisely advertising, so
the second gripe is

2) Inappropriate marketing claims.

Whilst it may seem like a slagging match, UK boat builders, that include
CDR, CRS have to abide by both trading standards and various advertising
laws.

If (eg) Persil (UK washing up liquid brand) want to declare they clean
better than the next most popular alternative, law requires them to have
an "independent" third party do a scientific survey/test to prove the
claim.

If CRS want to claim they have "minimal drag and maximum speed of any
rowing boat" then it is right that they have independent tests against
all other manufacturers boats to prove it. If they can prove their
comments, then show the proof. If they can't prove their comments, then
they need to (by law) tone them down.

For example instead of
"The result is the minimal drag and maximum speed of any rowing boat."
The comment could be:
"The boats are designed with the goal of achieving minimum draw and the
maximum speed of any rowing boat on the market."

If CRS put any of there claims in printed media, then they would be on
very dodgy ground indeed. It is not a matter simply of "Carl being
grumpy", it is a matter of misleading consumers, and a matter of various
consumer protection laws.

[Andrew]

> The second issue is one of marketing and more precisely advertising, so
> the second gripe is
>
> 2) Inappropriate marketing claims.

> If CRS put any of there claims in printed media, then they would be on
> very dodgy ground indeed. It is not a matter simply of "Carl being
> grumpy", it is a matter of misleading consumers, and a matter of various
> consumer protection laws.

I have a friend who is a Trading Standards officer who happened to be
visiting last weekend. Was interested to learn that an offence is
committed everytime someone reads an advert that is misleading or
untrue. So in theory if an advertiser were to put an ad in Regatta and
Rowing and it be read by about 20,000 people, 20,000 offences would be
committed. I imagine the same applies to websites, so anyone who has
read untrue marketing could report it to Trading standards who would
have to investigate.

Just thought it was interesting.

Andrew

(UK based, likely to be different elsewhere).

[Andrew]

> The second issue is one of marketing and more precisely advertising, so
> the second gripe is
>
> 2) Inappropriate marketing claims.

> If CRS put any of there claims in printed media, then they would be on
> very dodgy ground indeed. It is not a matter simply of "Carl being
> grumpy", it is a matter of misleading consumers, and a matter of various
> consumer protection laws.

I have a friend who is a Trading Standards officer who happened to be
visiting last weekend. Was interested to learn that an offence is
committed everytime someone reads an advert that is misleading or
untrue. So in theory if an advertiser were to put an ad in Regatta and
Rowing and it be read by about 20,000 people, 20,000 offences would be
committed. I imagine the same applies to websites, so anyone who has
read untrue marketing could report it to Trading standards who would
have to investigate.

Just thought it was interesting.

Andrew

(UK based, likely to be different elsewhere).

[Johannes Andersen]

Words sound more personal adressed, when shouted. I therefore understood the
many references to 2kV as a very personal attack “this man must never be
allowed to start again…” And I found this not fair according to my knowing
of GB and the history of 2kV. You are not allways in control of everything
that happens to your company, so a second chance should be allowed without
been killed before having a fair chance to prove the new worths. This made
me decide to stand up for the defence.

It took me a while to realise that the underlying problem might be “only”
words on a webpage. This I hope is easier to solve than personal issues.



Your examples with C2 vortex and Persil makes perfect sense to me and we
agree entirely.



I have now written to GB to recommend that he considers to rethink some of
the statements. And he answered that they will take a good look at the
wording. I hope this has been at some help.



Best regards,

Johannes Andersen

[Stephen and Jane]

Johannes Andersen wrote:
> Now the word “buoyancy” is becoming the top sales argument on the
> front page of several boatbuilders!
> You should be proud – and celebrate! :-)

> And even more: these boatbuilders are pushing the standards for
> safety even higher than the proposed standards in the LeoBlockley
> Files. Self bailing has been added – and CRS is providing so much
> buoyancy that at first you didn’t believe the numbers.

It is our understanding that from the beginning of our campaign most UK
boatbuilders were quick to accept the argument for buoyancy, but would much
prefer to have a common minimum buoyancy performance standard laid down by
regulation. This would provide a 'level playing field' and reduce the
commercial risks involved in making changes unilaterally. In fact we were
at a meeting between UK boatbuilders and the ARA some years ago, when the
manufacturers repeatedly asked the ARA to produce a buoyancy performance
standard, and were met with repeated refusal.

Manufacturers have to make a living, and therefore must try to produce what
will sell. For some inexplicable (and technically ignorant) reason the
common belief has been that safe = slow. Thus safety has never been a great
selling point for racing rowing shells. This has been such a problem that
in the past most manufacturers who either already made buoyant boats, or who
have changed their designs to incorporate full buoyancy, have not mentioned
it in their adverts or websites. However it appears this is slowly
beginning to change. We are, of course, delighted that this issue is being
addressed.

FISA's ruling on buoyancy has encouraged manufacturers to openly address the
issue. What we now need is for individual NGB's to adopt the FISA minimum
standard at national level, eventually to include all boats - old as well as
new. Here in the UK we are waiting for the ARA to follow the excellent
example of the Scottish ARA and the North East Region who have already taken
this step.

> I get the sad impression that you may be more engaged in your personal
> dislike of certain boatbuilders than in the essential case of how to
> promote buoyancy. Correct me, please. Why spank those who actually do
> what you want them to do?
> Will WinTech and CRS be put on the list of boatbuilders on the
> LeoBlockley Site who can provide safe boats? Or is this a list just
> for friends of friends?

Since the initial pages of the LB website were written there have been many
improvements and developments in design by boatbuilders. We do not seek to
favour "friends" or "friends of friends". There is nothing in this for us,
we only wish to promote rowing safety. We have no commercial or financial
interest in any part of the rowing world.

Stephen and Jane

[Johannes Andersen]

"Stephen and Jane" <***@ukgateway.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:***@mid.individual.net...
> Johannes Andersen wrote:
>> Now the word "buoyancy" is becoming the top sales argument on the
>> front page of several boatbuilders!
>> You should be proud - and celebrate! :-)
>
>> And even more: these boatbuilders are pushing the standards for
>> safety even higher than the proposed standards in the LeoBlockley
>> Files. Self bailing has been added - and CRS is providing so much
>> buoyancy that at first you didn't believe the numbers.
>
> It is our understanding that from the beginning of our campaign most UK
> boatbuilders were quick to accept the argument for buoyancy, but would
> much prefer to have a common minimum buoyancy performance standard laid
> down by regulation. This would provide a 'level playing field' and reduce
> the commercial risks involved in making changes unilaterally. In fact we
> were at a meeting between UK boatbuilders and the ARA some years ago, when
> the manufacturers repeatedly asked the ARA to produce a buoyancy
> performance standard, and were met with repeated refusal.
>
> Manufacturers have to make a living, and therefore must try to produce
> what will sell. For some inexplicable (and technically ignorant) reason
> the common belief has been that safe = slow. Thus safety has never been a
> great selling point for racing rowing shells. This has been such a
> problem that in the past most manufacturers who either already made
> buoyant boats, or who have changed their designs to incorporate full
> buoyancy, have not mentioned it in their adverts or websites. However it
> appears this is slowly beginning to change. We are, of course, delighted
> that this issue is being addressed.
>
> FISA's ruling on buoyancy has encouraged manufacturers to openly address
> the issue. What we now need is for individual NGB's to adopt the FISA
> minimum standard at national level, eventually to include all boats - old
> as well as new. Here in the UK we are waiting for the ARA to follow the
> excellent example of the Scottish ARA and the North East Region who have
> already taken this step.
>
>> I get the sad impression that you may be more engaged in your personal
>> dislike of certain boatbuilders than in the essential case of how to
>> promote buoyancy. Correct me, please. Why spank those who actually do
>> what you want them to do?
>> Will WinTech and CRS be put on the list of boatbuilders on the
>> LeoBlockley Site who can provide safe boats? Or is this a list just
>> for friends of friends?
>
> Since the initial pages of the LB website were written there have been
> many improvements and developments in design by boatbuilders. We do not
> seek to favour "friends" or "friends of friends". There is nothing in
> this for us, we only wish to promote rowing safety. We have no commercial
> or financial interest in any part of the rowing world.
>
> Stephen and Jane
>
>

I understand your concern, but you need not worry! I do not question the
purpose or the motive of the LB campain. I question some of the artillery
used by Carl in the good cause.

When a question about whether certain boats are buoyant is used to question
whether the boatbuilding company is reliable, then I think 2 different
things are being mixed up in a way that has no reason. It stirs up so much
dust that the readers might forget that buoyancy was being discussed. It may
hurt the credability of the campain and it may hurt a promising starting
boatbuilding company, who is actually doing an extremely good job in
providing bouyancy in their boats. I hope, I have been consistent in my
postings about this.

I have allways admired your noble way of communication, - in mails as in the
many fine letters in the archive - I wish others would learn by your
example.

I will respond to Carl in a separate posting, - but maybe not to night. I
have had a long day.



I am 100% behind you in the matter of safety and bouyancy in boats! If you
think I may be helpful in any way, feel free to mail me.



Yours,
Johannes Andersen

[Carl Douglas]

Johannes Andersen wrote:
> Off-Topic: I have just been to the theatre to watch “The Mariage of Figaro”.
> An exelent play with so many intriques and misconceptions that it almost
> rivals R.S.R. ;-)

Johannes - you still don't quite get the message:
No one is "intriguing" against anyone. Some of us most strongly
disapprove of anyone who makes a) unjustifiable claims &/or b) falsely
impugns their competitors. Others, who may possibly have unattractive
axes to grind, have then rushed in to accuse us of being unfair, having
ulterior motives & plotting against a certain company.

I am all too familiar with the latter tendency, as my brief account of
the Carbocraft scandal & general rowing public reaction to my daring to
expose what was going on there (& in that process expose myself to grave
risk from litigation), & certain ill-intended responses to my account in
this thread, show so well.

>
> Back to topic:
> First of all: english is not my native language, so I may not use the right
> words and I may read differently than some of you “between the lines”. But I
> do not think I am wrong in sensing a very bitter tone in this debate. And I
> am also quite sure that I am not the only (at least non-english) reader in
> this newsgroup that finds the general tone is clouding the message.
>

I do appreciate that it is harder for someone whose first language is
not English to pick the most suitable words &, sometimes, to quite
appreciate the tone of what an Englishman writes. However, you do have
an excellent command of English & so should perhaps have thought more
deeply before launching certain inflammatory remarks into what you saw
to be a furnace.

> Next: I am not saying the history of 2kV is irrelevant. On the contrary! 2kV
> is the very reason I expect the CRS boats to be exiting. It is the same
> designer so I expect/demand the ideas behind the boats to be the same - or
> improved versions. (Just see the beautiful pictures of the 1X – this is no
> sloppy handwork!)
>
> I don't see the CRS webpage is denying the fact, that this is not the first
> time Günther has been engaged in a boatbuilding adventure. Even if the exact
> name "2kV" is not mentioned for all webcrawlers to index. Why should he? 2kV
> went down and is history. From which I'm certain Günther learned a lot. I
> find the “About Us” page nice and honest about the history. Even though we
> have to recognize that english is not GB’s native tongue either.
> As I said, I am very sorry for anyone who might have lost money in this
> crash but I will not accept anyone holding this against Günther as if he is
> a swindler. For me that would imply coaxing money from a lot of customers
> and then run away to Canada with the money for a high society life.
> (I think a german boatbuilder "Loewe" did just that!)

I do know the unattractive history of Oscar Loewe, but I thought you
disapproved of criticism of struggling proprietors of failed businesses ;)
>
> Günther did the opposite. He fighted all the way down trying to keep the
> company afloat. I know; I may be the last customer that mamaged to get a
> boat. It was not a pleasant time for anybody involved.
> But I am sure the one who lost the most in the crash of 2kV was Günther
> himself. His personal money, his dream and appearently he earned himself a
> lot of enemies. (But I begin to get the feeling the enemies emerged long
> before the crash…)

Gunther caused offence during the 2kv era by his irrational & baseless
attacks on other builders & other products. He has cause similar
offence this time. And as others have pointed out, some of his
statements, as well as being intemperate & ill-advised, do indeed
infringe the law.

There were no personal windings by GB!
> Now a group of investors have talked GB into a comeback. I am very happy for
> this and I hope the group will succeed in creating what a one-man army could
> not!
>
> A note on the ‘documentation’ on the webpage: For the many boatbuilders
> making copies of some kind (Empacher, Karlish, VEB, etc) the world is very
> simple. If someone asks about the properties of the boat, the answer can be:
> “it’s just like Empacher” – meaning, “if it is good enough for them - it is
> good enough for you!” (And ok; most of us have either seen og rowed an
> Empacher. So we have a very good idea about what we get if we buy this type
> of boat.)
> For a designer drawing his boats from scratch he has to document everything
> himself. And this is an almost impossible task. If too little is written it
> is meaningless, and too much is also meaningless (for the main part of the
> readers) = high tech mombo-jumbo. And if he tries to make a popular version
> understandable by most of the readers there will always be the experts that
> can prove that the popular version is only 99% correct. Ergo the proof has
> fallen and the designer is wrong! The 2kV page tried to explain too much and
> was criticized. Now the CRS page says a lot less – and is criticized for
> lack of explaining. This is a battle that can not easily be won.

That comes into the category of special pleading, but commerce &
manufacture are tough old worlds & there are no extenuating
circumstances which justify a newcomer or a returned player in
disseminating misleading & defamatory remarks. The CRS statements to
which I & others have objected should never have been published. Their
immediate removal would in no way impair the relevant information
content that CRS can legitimately publish.

>
> But I think I begin to understand from what Carl is saying - what may have
> triggered the aversion from him and other boatbuilders.
> If rephrasing a statement like: “The result is the minimal drag and maximum
> speed of any rowing boat.” to “The boat is designed for absolute minimal
> drag and maximum speed.” - will make everybody happy, I might just go for
> Carls suggestion and give the webpage a close review and propose to CRS how
> the most drastic statements could be made less definitive and offensive.
> I have no doubt however, that BG is convinced the statement is true. (And it
> just might be true - I don’t know!) As for the data comparisons (like the
> numbers from FluidDesign) I find nothing wrong in comparing the numbers from
> your boat against the best numbers available from the competitors. It
> certainly is not dishonest unless the numbers are manipulated. And I hear no
> protests from the companies referred to?
> Is this interpretation of your words about rephrasing correct Carl? We need
> an end to this dispute.
>
>
>
>>>You may not have seen that in a posting a few weeks ago I acknowledged
>>>the possibility of CRS making an eight so buoyant that, like a single, it
>>>sinks very little lower when swamped. That is all to the good.
>
>
> Yes, Carl, I saw the posting and – again: it may be my poor understanding of
> english – but I found it hard to see any positive acknowledgement nor praise
> by reading your comment:
>
>
>>>A suitably shaped 1-piece inner structural skin, enclosing large volumes
>>>& providing only the necessary minimum of foot-space volume, can permit
>>>such an outcome.
>>>Sadly, it seems we've seen this lot before. A firm then known as 2KV
>>>made similarly hyperbolic claims detrimental to established & respected
>>>products - & then went pop. It left a nasty taste, some unhappy
>>>suppliers & no grounds to trust a 5-year warranty.

What I wrote there was absolutely fair comment. I confirmed the
technical feasibility of what was being said, & I stand by that. I also
issued a regretful health warning. 2 separate issues - like saying that
someone has a beautiful face but should consider taking a bath more
often. And before you that that remark too seriously & ride it into
battle, NO!, I am not thereby suggesting that Gunther neglects his
personal hygiene. OK? ;)

>
>
> As a true admirer of your heroic struggle for buoyancy (mind the tone,
> though) and other safety issues the last years I must say I am disappointed!
> When I read the comments above as well as your comments about the
> selfbailing WinTech boat, I did not believe my eyes.
> There is happening a very important thing right under our noses. And you –
> of all people – cannot see it.
> Now the word “buoyancy” is becoming the top sales argument on the front page
> of several boatbuilders!
> You should be proud – and celebrate! :-)

I take some pleasure that, at last, manufacturers are getting the
buoyancy message so well that they can see commercial advantage in doing
the job well. However, the job is not yet finished (by a long way).
Rowing NGBs are _still_ dragging their heels. And the cost of getting
this far included the deaths of a number of rowers, including a personal
friend of mine &, more recently the son of 2 brave people who became my
friends & have earned the admiration of all right-thinking rowers. So I
do not think that pride is remotely appropriate at this time. Nor do I
think it will be appropriate at any later date. Maybe the best there
can be will be a feeling of very great relief.

And I am afraid you have, yet again, completely misread my comments on
the Wintech demonstration. To me, & to those of us who have been so
busy in this buoyancy campaign, the crucial advance in safety terms has
been the provision of full shell buoyancy. I made crystal clear in my
reactions at the time that buoyancy was what really mattered & it would
be most unfortunate were rowers to confuse, worse still to equate, what
was a competitively helpful but rather limited self-bailing capability
with full buoyancy. Experience has shown us that this would lead some
in the sport to think, if a boat was self-bailing, that it didn't need
to be buoyant.

I hope you do, now, understand & appreciate this important distinction?

> And even more: these boatbuilders are pushing the standards for safety even
> higher than the proposed standards in the LeoBlockley Files. Self bailing
> has been added – and CRS is providing so much buoyancy that at first you
> didn’t believe the numbers.

That last statement is completely untrue & you should have the decency
to withdraw it.

>
> I get the sad impression that you may be more engaged in your personal
> dislike of certain boatbuilders than in the essential case of how to promote
> buoyancy. Correct me, please. Why spank those who actually do what you want
> them to do?
> Will WinTech and CRS be put on the list of boatbuilders on the LeoBlockley
> Site who can provide safe boats? Or is this a list just for friends of
> friends?

Your remarks in that paragraph are without foundation, entirely wrong,
damaging to a fine cause &, in personal terms, deeply offensive. And
_you_ dare to accuse others of starting fires.......

Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
Email: ***@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: [phone] Fax: -466550
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)

[Johannes Andersen]

>> And even more: these boatbuilders are pushing the standards for safety
>> even higher than the proposed standards in the LeoBlockley Files. Self
>> bailing has been added – and CRS is providing so much buoyancy that at
>> first you didn’t believe the numbers.
>


> That last statement is completely untrue & you should have the decency to
> withdraw it.
>


I will try to explain why I thought you didn’t believe the numbers:
(Sorry, for not including the following qoute in the first place)



> Well, if that were for a single, 2cm would be rather a lot ;) OTOH, if it
> was for an eight, & that figure was for the boat plus crew, filled to the
> brim, then there might be a bit of creative thinking involved.



This I read as if you were not convinced it could be true (for the bigger
boats).

And it were later followed up by the following:



>A suitably shaped 1-piece inner structural skin, enclosing large volumes &
>providing only the necessary minimum of foot-space volume, can permit such
>an outcome.
>Sadly, it seems we've seen this lot before. A firm then known as 2KV made
>similarly hyperbolic claims detrimental to established & respected
>products - & then went pop. It left a nasty taste, some unhappy suppliers
>& no grounds to trust a 5-year warranty.
>



Here I get mixed messages:

1) I read that such an outcome is possible. - Actually you make it sound as
easy that it is not worth writing home about. – But since I don’t know of
others who claim to provide so much bouyancy, I think CRS deserves some
credit for doing at least something well.

2) But by the succeeding statement that “….2KV made similar hyperbolic
claims….” you signal that it is unrealistic = not be possible anyway?



By insisting that a boatbuilder, who puts bouyancy as one of the important
reasons for selecting his boats, is untrustworthy – you may even push a
customer hesitating between buying the new CRS boat and a “traditional”
non-bouyant boat into a decision for a non-bouyant boat.

I don’t think this is the advice you want to give! – And I actually asked to
be corrected. Ok?
I was merely stating that you were sending the wrong signals here.



I totally agree with you that self-bailing alone may give a crew a false
sense of safety. But on top of bouyancy it is a very nice thing as it will
improve the situation in a swamped boat after a while.
On the other hand: selfbailing “by rowing” requires the boat to be “rowable
when swamped” which I think implyes a certain amount of bouyancy – so maybe
it cannot go alone?



Regarding the many claims at the CRS webpage – I find it hard for anyone to
be really offended. Any mother is proud of her child! Yes, the pages contain
quite a number of “definitive” statements like “…than any boat in the world”
but – if I may take the liberty - so do others!



I think it is difficult to decide the real difference between the following
example from the CRS webpage:

“GB’s designed hulls have the Advantage by Design. Put simply, CRS hulls are
faster than other hull designs.”



and the following example from the CDRS webpage:

“Carl Douglas Racing Shells are the finest you will ever meet and the most
advanced construction and hull forms of any racing boat.”



Regarding the complaint about GB claiming his hulls are stronger than
others – like accusing his colleagues of building poor boats? Well GB says:

“One major problem with current rowing and sculling boats lies in the fact
that their hulls loose much of their stiffness, in an unacceptably short
period of time.”

Another boatbuilder has an issue about the shoulders in other’s boats:

“In other shells the shoulders are far softer than the riggers – just go
round the boathouse trying them. Ours are incredibly strong and stiff.”



What is the difference? Both statements just hangs in the air with no names
on - open for others to be offended.



As others have said in this debate: many boatbuilders have produced boats of
uneven quality. I would go so far as saying that if any boatbuilder can
claim his boats have not suffered from delamination or loose ribs or similar
in his early production, then he is truly superhuman.



I will conclude that I’d much prefer to hear the rowers say the praising
words than the boatbuilder! But this implies that the rowers dare come
forward in this forum and present their (positive) opinion about CRS/GB
without being spanked by Carl Douglass. This, I feel, has been a problem
here.



Best regards,

Johannes Andersen

[Ewoud Dronkert]

On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 02:44:01 +0100, Johannes Andersen wrote:
> without being spanked by Carl Douglass.

Ha!

--
E. Dronkert

[a***@ge.com]

> And in the end the club was so happy for the boat that
> they asked to buy the boat. So Sarah's "horror story" is actually about a
> club who could not await the real thing.

I wasn't going to contribute to this thread as i have nothing
constructive to say, however that explanation is simply not true, so
I'll just make one post to back up what Sarah has said..

I was the coach of the crew that were given the CRS boat on free loan
for WEHoRR and Henley Boat Races.

We used the boat for about 3 weeks including racing it at WEHoRR and
then sent it back.

We were not 'so happy for the boat', and we did not ask to buy it!

[r***@xpressbc.org.uk]

***@ge.com wrote:
> > And in the end the club was so happy for the boat that
> > they asked to buy the boat. So Sarah's "horror story" is actually about a
> > club who could not await the real thing.
>
> I wasn't going to contribute to this thread as i have nothing
> constructive to say, however that explanation is simply not true, so
> I'll just make one post to back up what Sarah has said..
>
> I was the coach of the crew that were given the CRS boat on free loan
> for WEHoRR and Henley Boat Races.
>
> We used the boat for about 3 weeks including racing it at WEHoRR and
> then sent it back.
>
> We were not 'so happy for the boat', and we did not ask to buy it!


Hi Andy

Just to uncross the wires and put the record straight Johannes Anderson
was referring to us X- Press Boat Club as the club !!! when he says
"..........the club was so happy for the boat that they asked to buy
the boat........"


I had replied to Sarah last night on her original post of 17th Nov as
below :

.......Dear Sarah,

Your comment about the CRS 8 that you have seen :
"having no under seat buoyancy at all " is entirely correct
However the boat you have seen is NOT a production boat.


This shell is a proto type in which the rowing seat areas are only
glued in to make the hull ready to be rowed. This particular shell was

made as a prototype and was on loan from CRS in February 2006 for
trial tests.


We had for two years prior to February 2006 rowed a Janousek. On
trialling the CRS boat over two months we were consistently 9-10
seconds faster over a set piece : With the Janousek : 2.04 to 2.06
after changing to CRS prototype 1.54 to 1.57 Minutes - Time taken by
our coach!


We have been delighted by the stability and 'response' of this boat
that we arranged to purchase this prototype in July and we are just
going ahead to purchase a second new CRS 8, now out of the production
mould.


The prototype boat is racked in the CRA boathouse in Cambridge and is
there for all to inspect should they wish
I'm sure CRS would be delighted to show you a new boat and in
particular the water tight compartment areas


Richard Funnell - Captain X-Press BC 'Biggles' Crew

[a***@ge.com]

> Just to uncross the wires and put the record straight Johannes Anderson
> was referring to us X- Press Boat Club as the club !!! when he says
> "..........the club was so happy for the boat that they asked to buy
> the boat........"
>
> I had replied to Sarah last night on her original post of 17th Nov as
> below :
>
> .......

Hi Richard,

That would explain it then. Wires now uncrossed!

Let me know when you get the production boat. So far my only
experience of it has been the prototype (I didn't know it was a
prototype at the time). I'd be interested to see the real thing.

Cheers
Andy

[Pete]

Carl wrote:
> Facts are not dirty. Bullshit is. Products should not be advertised
> via claims which are false or cannot be substantiated. So it is only
> proper to question over-promotion, especially when its source has a
> record of promotion which denigrates the products & motives of others.
> Such questioning will, unsurprisingly, offend those with a vested
> interest in that over-promotion or in self-delusion.

A lot of what's on that website looks fairly easy to check (if you had
the time to go comparing wetted surface areas and so on). Some of it
looks dodgy (how do you quantify stability?). Yes, it comes over as
over-hyping the product, but a lot of people do that. You could argue
that the copy on your site about the Aerofin is similar. Presumably
you've done tests to back up your claims, but the raw results aren't
obviously available.

The obvious issue I can see is this hydrofoil shell claim, which I am
far from convinced about. I can't see anything else to hang a label of
'false' on.

> Rowing loves combining too much bullshit with too little knowledge, so
> equipment selection is too often faith-based rather than the logical
> outcome of careful testing. Crews may be seat-raced, sometimes to
> destruction, but boats are bought on the basis of who this week is using
> or claiming what. And without properly time-trialling boats, or blades,
> or techniques, people will leap to assure us that this or that is
> "fast". Is that clever?

Vortex edge blades. Same deal, CII eventually toned down their copy
when people found not much difference.

As far as I can see, what CRS is is a new start up, producing boats
which will probably be fairly similar to 2kv (which is hardly a rip off
job, since the designer's the same guy). 2kv were known for variable
build quality, some of their boats are still in good shape and some are
not. You could say the same about the old Aylings boats (some were
excellent, some were terrible). I'd be happy to buy a boat from say
Filippi or Empacher on the basis of a trial in a demo boat, because I'd
be confident that the boat I received would be similar. Aylings or CRS
(or in fact most boat builders), I'd want to try out the actual boat.
And obviously the guarantee isn't worth much.

I really don't see that anyone is going to run out and buy a CRS boat
purely on the website claims. People buy expensive stuff because the
olympics were won in one of those, or because the world record holder
has them, not because some website claims something. CRS will get
somewhere if they can get a lot of people out in demo boats and a lot
of people like those boats, what they say on their website won't
matter.

Pete

[Alasdhair Johnston]

> Vortex edge blades. Same deal, CII eventually toned down their copy
> when people found not much difference.

The only reason I bought the Vortex Edge option was because I like the
corners of my blades to stay the same shape despite being scraped over rough
concrete steps when boating and landing...

[p***@hotmail.com]

Alasdhair Johnston wrote:
> > Vortex edge blades. Same deal, CII eventually toned down their copy
> > when people found not much difference.
>
> The only reason I bought the Vortex Edge option was because I like the
> corners of my blades to stay the same shape despite being scraped over rough
> concrete steps when boating and landing...

Ah yes, the "Vortex Edge protector" Option. Well done! Got that on my
Macons and during ordering was asked, "Are you sure you want the slower
blades?" To which the only fitting answer seemed to be "Of course, I'm
a slow rower." [;o)

And a topical question:

Is it possible that something that provided a large advantage for a
short distance sprint, not hold that advantage over the regular course
distance?

I've noticed that between our Maas 2x and Emperorpacher that the Maas
seems to be equal or perhaps better at sub-racing speeds as far as
perceived effort was concerned, but when up at racing speeds the
Emperorpacher clearly is sustainable more easily. And even a bit more
strange, moving to a wider span/longer outboard/less overlap seems to
have improved performance as well, i.e. faster paces at equal rates.
Truly the opposite of what I was expecting.

- Paul Smith

[Carl Douglas]

***@hotmail.com wrote:
> Alasdhair Johnston wrote:
>
>>>Vortex edge blades. Same deal, CII eventually toned down their copy
>>>when people found not much difference.
>>
>>The only reason I bought the Vortex Edge option was because I like the
>>corners of my blades to stay the same shape despite being scraped over rough
>>concrete steps when boating and landing...
>
>
> Ah yes, the "Vortex Edge protector" Option. Well done! Got that on my
> Macons and during ordering was asked, "Are you sure you want the slower
> blades?" To which the only fitting answer seemed to be "Of course, I'm
> a slow rower." [;o)
>
> And a topical question:
>
> Is it possible that something that provided a large advantage for a
> short distance sprint, not hold that advantage over the regular course
> distance?
>
> I've noticed that between our Maas 2x and Emperorpacher that the Maas
> seems to be equal or perhaps better at sub-racing speeds as far as
> perceived effort was concerned, but when up at racing speeds the
> Emperorpacher clearly is sustainable more easily. And even a bit more
> strange, moving to a wider span/longer outboard/less overlap seems to
> have improved performance as well, i.e. faster paces at equal rates.
> Truly the opposite of what I was expecting.
>
> - Paul Smith
>

Right on the ball there, Paul.

Boat design is a complex trade-off between many factors, calling for
(but rarely receiving) optimisation for a given crew (size, weight,
power), length of course, water temperature & depth, wave height, wind
direction & strength. So there can be no "absolute best" boat whatever
vendors may claim ;) .

I'll give a simple instance from the world of single-paddle/Canadian
canoeing:
We used to make a very beautiful & effective 2-man open canoe (though I
say it myself). I designed it to be good to paddle, light &, in
competent hands, swift while meeting all the normal criteria for what
was actually a touring boat. I'm not too bad as a designer & builder, &
this boat soon attracted the attention of marathon racers in Europe (we
even sold one in the USA).

Our boat was 18ft long, whereas US racers were 21ft. Some thought the
shorter length a disadvantage since, in general, longer allows faster.
But that view is simplistic, as longer also means more wetted surface &
wetted surface also affects hull drag (but less strongly than some wish
us believe). So for fixed crew weight there's a direct (if non-linear)
relationship between available power & optimum length for given design
characteristics.

The longer your race, the lower your continuous power output (marathon
runners are slower than milers, who are slower than 100-metre
sprinters). So as a race extends & the power available falls you really
need a shorter boat - provided only that it is also well-designed. But
for the short print, take the longer boat.

Cheers -
Carl

--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
Email: ***@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: [phone] Fax: -466550
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)

[Pete]

***@hotmail.com wrote:
> Is it possible that something that provided a large advantage for a
> short distance sprint, not hold that advantage over the regular course
> distance?

Well, on that subject - if you have a heavier gearing (or bigger
spoons) then you'll find it easier technically to put a lot of power
down for a short time, and the boat will go fast over maybe 500m. If
you are doing a 2k with the same setup, you'll need to be stronger than
the guy with easier gearing if you want to end up producing the same
power: if you're not, then you'll go backwards towards the end of the
race.

I have vortex edges, they are maybe a bit heavier than non-vortex edge
CIIs. But they do protect the corners of the blade nicely.

Pete

[s***@btinternet.com]

Following your logic Jeremy: "But everyone knows that yellow boats
are faster? Aren't they?". Paint a carved tree yellow and you are
fast! OOOOP's! ! ! !
There is only one problem with this; there is less and less yellow in
the medallions ranks on international events year by year. May there is
something going on?

Simon

Jeremy Fagan wrote:
> ***@btinternet.com wrote:
> > Jeremy, had you ever had a look for this Stelph boats?
> >
> > They look like 'Empatcher'! ! ! ! ! Or?
> >
> > Only a bit the supermarket version?
>
> But everyone knows that yellow boats are faster? Aren't they? I've rowed
> in 2 Aylings 8s of similar vintage that were painted yellow to make them
> go faster. A similar effect can of course be achieved by never washing
> your boat..
>
> >
> > Are you paranoid?
> >
>
> The voices tell me I'm not.
>
> Jeremy

[Jeremy Fagan]

Clearly the slowing down of the ageing universe has changed the
fundamental speed of different colours, leading to yellow being less
effective. Or something.

Jeremy

***@btinternet.com wrote:
> Following your logic Jeremy: "But everyone knows that yellow boats
> are faster? Aren't they?". Paint a carved tree yellow and you are
> fast! OOOOP's! ! ! !
> There is only one problem with this; there is less and less yellow in
> the medallions ranks on international events year by year. May there is
> something going on?
>
> Simon
>
> Jeremy Fagan wrote:
>
>>***@btinternet.com wrote:
>>
>>>Jeremy, had you ever had a look for this Stelph boats?
>>>
>>>They look like 'Empatcher'! ! ! ! ! Or?
>>>
>>>Only a bit the supermarket version?
>>
>>But everyone knows that yellow boats are faster? Aren't they? I've rowed
>>in 2 Aylings 8s of similar vintage that were painted yellow to make them
>>go faster. A similar effect can of course be achieved by never washing
>>your boat..
>>
>>
>>>Are you paranoid?
>>>
>>
>>The voices tell me I'm not.
>>
>>Jeremy
>
>

[Adam]

My only problem with the company is that its in Wisbech! Obviously
there won't be a massive market there for their boats as the majority
of the inhabitants are able to run on the water using their webbed
feet! (tongue strictly in cheek here!)

[h***@btinternet.com]