First and Third Trinity Boat Club
Log In

Message Board

Members' Opinion Polls

Message board > Members' Opinion Polls > Members' poll: That's a negative Ghost rider, the pattern is full... 

That's a negative Ghost rider, the pattern is full...
Apparently congestion in the mornings is getting worse (although we reached gridlock years ago). A 'leaked' CUCBC paper has suggested banning novices from the mornings, prompting some discussion. What to do?
Ban novices from early mornings  3%
Ban CULRC from early mornings  43%
Ban seniors from early mornings in November  29%
Ban rowing  9%
Allow limited senior outings in the dark  26%
Move novice races to the middle of Lent term  17%
Build a bigger river  74%
A quota system of early morning outings  14%
Build an air traffic control tower at Chesterton and require all boats to proceed under its control during outings  34%
Total: 35 members' votes
by mjb - Sun 11th Nov 2007, 7:31pm
Simon said: What to do?
Where's the "ban all other colleges from the Cam" option ?
by RTT - Sun 11th Nov 2007, 10:01pm
Letting colleges row in the dark is a ridiculous suggestion. The only reason it is OK for the town clubs is that there are very rarely more than one or two crews out. Since you'd need to allow each college to have a minimum of one allocation spot for each sex, that's about sixty outings to fit in to give everybody one night outing.

If we assume all boats do a single run, the number of times that boats meet goes up as the triangle numbers, ie. O(n^2). Three town crews => three meetings. Three town crews plus three college crews => fifteen meetings. You therefore probably don't want to let more than three college crews out per night, meaning it takes four weeks to get through the list. Since this means you only get two outings per term, it seems a bit pointless to go through the hassle and increased risk.

I'm sure a more complicated time slot arrangement (eg. two sessions per night) could improve on this to some extent, but the whole thing is a bit of a non-starter.
by Simon - Mon 12th Nov 2007, 12:14am
RTT said: Letting colleges row in the dark is a ridiculous suggestion.
You're right for the safety reasons you note.

What might be interesting though, is the fact that not all Colleges would take up their outing slot. If one did want to have night outings - and we don't, because safety is the first priority - then some sort of "outing permits trading scheme" would be interesting. How much would we pay for extra outings? Would it make the playing field a bit more level because people like Lucy Cav would earn money to buy better equipment or pay for coaches? Or would it just make the gap between good and bad even bigger?
by inconvenient truth - Mon 12th Nov 2007, 3:07pm
Simon said: "outing permits trading scheme"
I suspect the whole thing would fail due to Downing's refusal to ratify the treaty
by Charley - Tue 13th Nov 2007, 9:23am
I'm definitely a fan of building a control tower at Chesterton, but only if it's mandatory to request a fly by each time you pass. Could slow things down a bit, but would make outings just a little more exciting.
by RTT - Tue 13th Nov 2007, 7:57pm
Bumps entry fees would have to skyrocket though, in order to fund all the extra coffee required after spillage.

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.