First and Third Trinity Boat Club
Log In

Message Board

Racing News

Message board > Racing News > Head of the River Fours 
  

7th Nov '04Head of the River Foursby jpd
First and Third men came 249th in 21:40, making them the fastest Cambridge college crew ahead of Clare by just over a second and beating a Granta crew in the process.

First and Third women came 447th in 23:39, placing them second of the Cambridge college women's crews behind Magdalene (who beat three Osiris crews!).

Black Prince men came 213th in 21:22 whilst Black Prince women came 488th in 24:27.

Elsewhere, the first three coxless crews belong to CUBC whilst the first two coxed crews belong to OUBC so all bets are off for the Boat Race, although Cambridge have a slight early edge for the reserve race; CUBC V won S1+, whilst Isis IV won S2+.

CULRC and CUWBC both have work to do as their Oxford counterparts put on a strong showing; Osiris crews won WS2+ and WS3+ academic pennants. Black Prince also have work to do as Boar's Head won the W3+ club category.
by jpd - Sun 7th Nov 2004, 12:21am
Here are most of the relevant results (* indicates category winner):

003*4-    CUBC I       18:57.20
007 4-    CUBC III     19:13.63
010 4-    CUBC II      19:15.64
012 4-    Isis I       19:21.03
014*4+    Isis II      19:23.73
018 4+    Isis III     19:26.85
038*S1+   CUBC V       19:46.86
052 4-    CUBC IV      20:01.65
056*S2+   Isis IV      20:06.44
073 S2+   CUBC VI      20:21.22
077*S3+C  Boar's Head  20:24.36
120 S2+   Isis V       20:43.18
132 S2-   CULRC        20:47.65
137 S3+A  Nephthys I   20:49.90
164 S3+A  Nephthys II  21:02.92
177 S3+A  Granta I     21:07.54
183 S3+A  Nephthys III 21:09.29
213 S3+C  BPBC II      21:22.69
237*WS2+  Osiris I     21:35.43
249 S3+A  FaT I        21:40.43
253 S3+A  Clare II     21:41.76
264 S3+A  Granta II    21:48.94
265 S3+A  Queens' I    21:49.61
267 4x    Christ's     21:50.56
276 WS2+  CUWBC I      21:53.79
282 S3+A  Emmanuel II  21:55.47
289 S3+A  Magdalene I  21:56.99
311 W4-   Osiris III   22:09.92
315*WS3+A Osiris II    22:11.60
330 WS3+A CUWBC II     22:22.01
337 WS3+A CUWBC III    22:23.28
363 WS3+A CUWBC IV     22:37.38
370 WS3+A Magdalene II 22:40.33
379 WS3+A Osiris VI    22:43.64
381 WS3+A Osiris V     22:44.60
386 WS3+A Osiris IV    22:48.10
387 S3+A  LMBC         22:49.10
394 S3+A  Emmanuel I   22:53.10
447 WS3+A FaT II       23:39.24
457 WS3+A Clare I      23:50.15
460 WS3+A Churchill I  23:52.20
461 WS3+A Selwyn       23:54.14
480 WS3+A Queens'      24:16.26
485 WS3+A Newnham      24:22.05
488 WS3+C BPBC         24:27.17
498 WS3+A St. Catz     24:40.46
500 WS3+A Emmanuel     24:43.40
501 WS3+A Trinity Hall 24:44.63
522 WS3+A Churchill II 25:38.24
526 WS3+A Emmanuel IV  26:40.66
by jpd - Sun 7th Nov 2004, 12:31am
jpd said: Black Prince also have work to do as Boar's Head won the W3+ club category.
Obviously something went seriously wrong here as Boar's Head won S3+ (any ideas what W3+ might be?) and I mentioned "Black Prince" and "work" in the same sentence.
by for more info... - Sun 7th Nov 2004, 9:34am
Our Head of the River IVs results page
Pictures
by tab or scum? who shall i support? - Sun 7th Nov 2004, 7:54pm
Amused to see that Osiris I beat FaT I. Perhaps much more pleased to see my crew (osiris VI) beat LMBC men!!! (as well as Osiris IV and V) Women scum beating men scum. whoho. well done all. glad to see CUBC whooping Isis too, dirty scum.
by Fat - Sun 7th Nov 2004, 10:07pm
I think you're confusing the scum with the filth
by Tom C - Mon 8th Nov 2004, 2:24am
glad to see CUBC whooping Isis too, dirty scum.
but they might struggle to enter an 8- into the boat race.
by scum - Mon 8th Nov 2004, 7:36pm
Tom C said: but they might struggle to enter an 8- into the boat race.
they could follow one crew's example in the fours head by substituting their cox for a pumpkin. check out the pictures. would put the link up, but that would take effort
by Simon - Tue 9th Nov 2004, 9:20am
Note that the results have been updated slightly since Saturday so the positions quoted above are slightly wrong, although in most cases the order of the crew is still the same (they have removed the "time only" crews). One exception to this is the addition of a minute to Boar's Head's time.
Also worth considering that Emma I (men) had a penalty added to them - it's safe to assume that this is at least a minute if not more so they are faster than their low position would suggest.
I've updated some of the results page but haven't checked whether the "position in 4+/W4+" statistic is right, so if someone else could do that it should all be sorted.
by Alex - Wed 10th Nov 2004, 11:32am
CULRC and CUWBC both have work to do as their Oxford counterparts put on a strong showing; Osiris crews won WS2+ and WS3+ academic pennants.
Actually, I'm not so sure I agree with this. Obviously, it would have been better if the CUWBC crews had annihilated all of the Oxford boats, but even without this, I think the results are still quite encouraging for a range of reasons.

(1) Osiris III (W4-) limped across the line with a pretty uninspiring time that was considerably slower than that posted by their WS24+, which really doesn't bode well for March, even if you allow for poor steering.

(2) The top end of the CUW and OUW squads are actually pretty close, and much closer than they were last year. It is true that Osiris I beat CUWBC I, and Osiris II beat CUWBC II, but the margins are not big enough to write off CUWBC yet. Given that the top two CUWBC fours will inevitably provide the basis for the Blue Boat (barring the 'ringer' they rather inappropriately shipped in), I think that it is fair to say that while CUWBC have a challenge on their hands, it is one that, with sustained effort they can overcome.

(3) There is definitely more depth in the CUWBC squad than last year. If we concentrate on the relative positions of the two clubs considered as a whole, then CUWBC is looking very good. Osiris IV, V and VI were all beated by solid performances from CUWBC II, III and IV. This suggests that while the Blue Boat race is going to be a tough race this year, the Osiris-Blondie race is currently looking to be ours for the taking.

CUWBC has had a tendency to live in fantasy over the past few years, but it seems that they are finally getting their act together (no doubt due, in part, to the efforts of Kate Hillier). The year has begun more pleasingly than it has done for some time: if the squad recognise their actual position relative to Oxford and respond appropriately, then we may be able to look realistically at something other than a wash-out in March and look forward to a reversal of fortunes.

However, I do agree with JPD that CULRC have a VERY long way to go. Maybe less running and more rowing is in order?
by jpd - Thu 11th Nov 2004, 12:59pm
Alex said: Actually, I'm not so sure I agree with this.
I was basing my reports purely on this data (which is probably not statistically significant and is especially dubious for CUBC and CULRC as times for coxless fours have been adjusted by my guess of 20s):
CUBC:      I - 19:17   II - 19:33
Isis:     II - 19:23  III - 19:26 win by 1s

CUBC:    III - 19:33    V - 19:46 win by 26s
Isis:      I - 19:41   IV - 20:06

   CULRC - 21:07 Granta I - 21:07
Nepthys:   I - 20:49   II - 21:02 win by 23s

CUWBC:     I - 21:53   II - 22:22
Osiris:    I - 21:35  III - 22:09 win by 32s

CUWBC:   III - 22:23   IV - 22:37
Osiris:   II - 22:11    V - 22:44 win by 5s

Firstly, I believe I wrote that CUWBC and CULRC had work to do; I didn't say they were going to lose. In fact, the times above might indicate the CULRC/Granta are closer to Nepthys than CUWBC to Osiris. Perhaps CUWBC are closer to Osiris this year than last (I haven't looked at the data from last year so don't know), which would be encouraging. However, I don't understand how the performances of Osiris IV, V and VI would indicate a close race for the blue boats - could you explain? On Osiris IV and VI, we don't have data from CUWBC V and VI against which to compare them as they didn't race. I am prepared to believe that CUWBC have greater depth this year, but as I have no data to support this I'm not well placed to comment.
by jpd - Thu 11th Nov 2004, 1:01pm
jpd said: However, I don't understand how the performances of Osiris IV, V and VI would indicate a close race for the blue boats - could you explain?
OK, you didn't say that at all...
by results archive - Thu 11th Nov 2004, 1:17pm
jpd said: I am prepared to believe that CUWBC have greater depth this year, but as I have no data to support this I'm not well placed to comment.
If you're after data from last year, it looks like we have everything you'd want...
by Alex - Thu 11th Nov 2004, 2:29pm
results archive said: If you're after data from last year, it looks like we have everything you'd want
Well, almost...

The vital information that is missing is
- how high the tide was in 2003 compared to 2004
- how soon the race went off after the peak of the tide in each year (i.e. just how punctual it was)
- how fast the flow declined from its maximum
- wind conditions in 2003

Without this sort of information, it's just not possible to make meaningful comparisons. Even if you assume that in 2003 all times were different from 2004, differences in tide peak, wind and things like that could mean that certain starting positions are affected very differently from year to year. For example, while boat 1 could go off in roughly the same sort of conditions each year and produce a similar time (hypothetically), unless the tide peaked to exactly the same level and declined at exactly the same rate, and boats were sent off at exactly the same time intervals, boat 300 could experience very different conditions from one year to the next and have its results 'stretched' one way or another in both absolute and relative terms.
by Alex - Thu 11th Nov 2004, 2:31pm
results archive said: If you're after data
Really, it is a shame that CUWBC and Osiris are loath to comete in the Indoor Rowing Champs. If we had data from that (which would be pretty absolute), armchair punditry would be much easier. Why do the squads have to be so inconsiderate?
by RTT - Thu 11th Nov 2004, 2:56pm
Alex said: Why do the squads have to be so inconsiderate?
Because if any of them came out well ahead we'd have no grounds to bitch about them?
by scum - Thu 11th Nov 2004, 7:56pm
Why do the squads have to be so inconsiderate?
something about ergs and floating???
by Simon - Thu 11th Nov 2004, 9:14pm
Alex said: Well, almost...
But now that all the boats in the same class start with each other in the 4s head, it's possible to do a comparison similar JPD's one above. If we change the winning margins that JPD has calculated from seconds to %s then it should be possible to do a similar, very rough, year-on-year comparison.
And of course it's not supposed to be exact - it's punditry, not rocket science!
by Alex - Fri 12th Nov 2004, 1:48am
Simon said: But now that all the boats in the same class start with each other in the 4s head,
Theoretically, this sounds alright, but there are still problems involved if you want to use results to gauge chances for the Boat Races, especially with CUWBC and CULRC. There are, for example, roughly 45 crews in WS3 4+ A. The idea is that crews are set off at roughly four a minute, which never really happens, so you're looking at about fifteen minutes to get these crews off in any given year. This makes comparisons between the boats in one year alone vague at best (esp. given some of the awful steering I saw from Oxbridge colleges at the weekend), but makes it even more difficult to compare between years. The time between the first and the last crew in a given division will vary greatly, and the time between the first crew setting off and the peak of the tide will also vary, so even percentages are woefully inaccurate. Plus, the numeber in each category will vary from year to year.

At the head of the river, you can make some meaningful comparisons. For the top divisions, there is going to be far less variation because (a) they don't mess around at the start so much; (b) they are set off closest to the peak tide year after year.

In the true spirit of FaT punditry, what we really need is some way of measuring how fast the tide decreases over time given a particular peak tide level. THEN we can produce some pretty impressive punditry that will kick the Bumpsdaq analysis and trading into a cocked hat...
by Simon - Fri 12th Nov 2004, 8:29am
Alex said: what we really need is some way of measuring how fast the tide decreases over time given a particular peak tide level.
Something like this?
by Sarah - Fri 19th Nov 2004, 3:07pm
Alex said: what we really need is some way of measuring how fast the tide decreases over time given a particular peak tide level.

for that you need the software that Christopher Anton on r.s.r has: (or post something there asking for them, and he'll oblige) - details of a typical stream in November here already:

Tide predictions for the Scullers' head

what you will actually find there is very little difference between the start and end of divisions in the fours head - yes there is quite a difference between starting crew 1 and crew 400 in the HoRR, but 15 mins isn't going to be that different. You're more likely to be affected by the margin of error induced by the start/finish timer clicking their watch...
by Alex - Fri 19th Nov 2004, 5:08pm
Sarah said: Alex said: what we really need is some way of measuring how fast the tide decreases over time given a particular peak tide level.

for that you need the software that Christopher Anton on r.s.r has: (or post something there asking for them, and he'll oblige) - details of a typical stream in November here already:

Tide predictions for the Scullers' head

what you will actually find there is very little difference between the start and end of divisions in the fours head - yes there is quite a difference between starting crew 1 and crew 400 in the HoRR, but 15 mins isn't going to be that different. You're more likely to be affected by the margin of erro
I have to say I find the numbers that Christopher Anton has posted remarkably hard to believe. I don't think that anyone who rows on the Thames would agree that there is so little variation in stream (insofar as it acts on boats) across periods of two and a half hours or more. I suppose it all really depends on how the figures are determined. If the data given is based on readings taken a set depth below the surface in the exact centre of the stream at all times, then I suppose they are marginally more plausible, but given the changes tide level is going to make to surface speed, average width of peak stream etc., I doubt that these figures can be used to be absolutely representative.
by Simon - Fri 19th Nov 2004, 7:45pm
Alex said: I have to say I find the numbers that Christopher Anton has posted remarkably hard to believe.
OK, so it varies by 4cm/s over the course of two hours on a November day with no recent rain (and I think a neap tide). Based on the figures he gives, the water covers the course nearly 12mins faster at the fastest flow than at the slowest. If I was only drifting down the river in the circumstances he describes above then I would expect that it would probably only take 12 mins longer to drift... neap tides, so not as much water moving around, no rainfall, and on a tide running out rather than in (the gap between high and low tide is much longer than that between low and high, which I've never understood)..
by Alex - Fri 19th Nov 2004, 9:56pm
Simon said: the water covers the course nearly 12mins faster at the fastest flow than at the slowest.
You are right: for some reason, I'd completely ignored the fact that the figures are in metres/second... Given that this is the case, this flow prediction would certainly help us to make more meaningful comparisons. It would, however, be helpful if we could get one or two more decimal places out of the predictions, although this really is descending to a new level of armchair punditry...
by Martin - Sat 20th Nov 2004, 11:17am
Simon said: the water covers the course nearly 12mins faster at the fastest flow than at the slowest
I don't see why this is relevant. You are not drifting with the current, you are rowing significantly faster than it. His figures show a change in stream of ~ 2 - 3% over 2.5 hours, but once you work through the maths the final effect on race times is much less. (Think of the extreme case. If crews rowed at hundreds of miles an hour, a few cm/s change in stream would make effectively no difference in race times at all. The %age difference in crew speeds relative to the bank would be tiny.)

He predicts it amounts to about 5 seconds over the 2.5 hours, which if you assume crews row at around 5m/s is consistent.

And thus I think the predictions look a bit naff. 5 seconds is not enough.
by Simon - Sat 20th Nov 2004, 9:48pm
Martin said: I don't see why this is relevant.
I agree with you: his view that a change of 2cm/s only filters through to 5s on race speed doesn't seem quite right. However, my last post was only suporting the flow rates that he predicts as sounding about right... I wasn't trying to correlate them to the effect on a racing boat, but on a Poohstick.
Plus I think these are probably average flow figures for the whole river, not just for the "stream" in the middle. Remember that the "stream" will diminish as the river gets shallower as it is created by the difference in depth in the channel cf by the banks. This difference will obviously be less as the river empties.

We could just contact Mr Anton and ask him for how he's constructed these figures...
by 1st time in a boat in 2 years today - Sun 21st Nov 2004, 8:13pm
Simon said: I agree with you: his view that a change of 2cm/s only filters through to 5s on race speed doesn't seem quite right.
I was unclear - I believe that 5 seconds is correct on the basis of his 'predictions' of the flow. And so his predictions of flow seem like this must be awry.

Facebook Instagram Youtube LinkedIn
If you have any comments or suggestions please email the webmaster. Click here to switch between designs. If you log in as a First and Third member, you can set a preference for a color scheme on your profile.