First and Third Trinity Boat Club
Log In

Message Board

General Discussion

General discussion about anything even only vaguely club or rowing related

Message board > General Discussion > Pump it up 
  

Pump it up by Neil - Mon 3rd Apr 2006, 2:23pm
According to ITV's commentary yesterday, Oxford had a pump in the boat while Cambridge didn't.

Could anyone with insider knowledge please confirm whether this is accurate, and if so, what this pump looks like and how it is fitted / operated? And was Cambridge's decision not to fit one tactical or was there some other reason?
by Bryn - Mon 3rd Apr 2006, 4:47pm
I'm also curious about this. The BBC says that Oxford had four pumps but that Cambridge's boat design meant that they were unable to have any. Even if these conditions were unusually bad, surely on the tideway you should be prepared for something like that...? And how are the boat designs so radically different? Do top-of-the-range Empachers vary that much?
by Simon - Mon 3rd Apr 2006, 5:15pm
The boats were identical - empachers with under-seat bouyancy. Oxford actually had 4 pumps (presumably each one doing two footwells) and according to Rachel Quarrel on the rec.sport.rowing newsgroup, only used them momentarily. There is no good reason for Cambridge not to have had them - they had obviously done a weight/benefit calculation and made the call to leave them.

I personally think the race is won by Oxford just before the worst water when Seb managed to push the umpire and get away with drifting away from Surrey and thus push Cambridge out of the stream. He then turns sharply to keep the stream, and with Cambridge slow to react he gains a couple of seats. When they then hit the bad water, Cambridge are closer to the middle of the river and thus hit a nastier patch of water and it's game over. I'd love to see the helicopter footage for the whole race to confirm this. I'd also love to see the 2 crews race each other over 2km on a straight course.
by esther - Mon 3rd Apr 2006, 6:42pm
i thought they both usually have pumps. i thought they were rowdata pumps? seems a bit stupid not to have them. never a dull day at the boatrace

ps: i didn't see it, i objected to watching everyone swoon over Barney Williams who is a complete tit and who everyone in oxford can't stand. does anyone have it on video?
by esther - Mon 3rd Apr 2006, 6:46pm
http://www.rowdata.co.uk/page.php?id=0000000026
by Bryn - Mon 3rd Apr 2006, 9:23pm
does anyone have it on video?
There's a video on the boat race website. There was also a higher resolution video on offer at first but none of them were working. It now seems to have been removed.
by jpd - Tue 4th Apr 2006, 7:37am
This is quite interesting.
by Bryn - Tue 4th Apr 2006, 1:42pm
Bryn said: There's a video on the boat race website.
That one has also been taken down... You can now only get this one.
by jpd - Tue 4th Apr 2006, 3:23pm
Also of interest: the boats used in the boat race (by both CUBC and OUBC) used wing riggers mounted on top of the saxboards (left diagram), but Empacher have been known to make boats with notches in the saxboard for wing riggers (right diagram) thereby keeping the saxboards at the same height as for conventional riggers (see clearance to the water). I wonder why this design wasn't used?

     ___       _____________
____|___|____      |___|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
by Simon - Tue 4th Apr 2006, 3:46pm
jpd said: the boats used in the boat race (by both CUBC and OUBC) used wing riggers mounted on top of the saxboards (left diagram)
Because using the left hand design will have kept the "wings" further from the water and thus less likely to hit the top of a wave?
by jmg - Tue 4th Apr 2006, 4:32pm
Simon said: Because using the left hand design will have kept the "wings" further from the water and thus less likely to hit the top of a wave?
Surely the rigger height is the same? the only difference is the extra saxboard height in between the riggers. Plus, I'm sure you could seal the cut-out fairly well if you were expecting rough weather.
by jmg - Tue 4th Apr 2006, 4:34pm
Bryn said: That one has also been taken down... You can now only get this one.
I've got the video recorded from Freeview - probably a fairly large MPEG2 file even once I've trimmed it to just the race. Anyone keen to host this for me?
by Simon - Tue 4th Apr 2006, 9:38pm
jmg said: Surely the rigger height is the same?
So the rigger height stays the same and they just have a higher saxsboard? (by the way, what is the spelling and the origins of that word? I've always wondered.) I asssumed that the saxsboard height was constant (bar the cut outs) and that the frontstay/bottom of the pin were at different heights.
by dw229 - Tue 4th Apr 2006, 11:58pm
If the saxboards are different heights in the two setups that means Empacher produce different boat designs for wing and normal riggers. That can't be right surely?
by Simon - Wed 5th Apr 2006, 6:22am
dw229 said: If the saxboards are different heights in the two setups that means Empacher produce different boat designs for wing and normal riggers. That can't be right surely?
They already produce a few different saxsboard heights for different crew-weight boats, so I wouldn't rule it out.

And for a while the under seat buoyancy chambers were optional.
by jpd - Wed 5th Apr 2006, 9:21am
dw229 said: If the saxboards are different heights in the two setups that means Empacher produce different boat designs for wing and normal riggers. That can't be right surely?
Wing boats also don't have shoulders. Pretty much everything except the mould shape can be easily customised.
by Mike - Wed 5th Apr 2006, 9:32am
Simon said: what is the spelling and the origins of that word?
The spelling is saxboard. As for the etymology: the only online dictionary that seems to have it is the OED (subscription only unfortunately, for those outside Cambridge). The etymology given by the OED is:

Cf. Old Norse. sax (a use of sax = SAX n.1) raised prow of a ship.

The definition of SAX it refers to is:

A knife; a short sword or dagger. A chopping-tool used for trimming slates.

So it seems that it's something to do with the shape of the boat as it 'cuts' through the water.
by Martin P - Wed 5th Apr 2006, 2:53pm
jmg said: I've got the video recorded from Freeview - probably a fairly large MPEG2 file even once I've trimmed it to just the race. Anyone keen to host this for me?
I think we should have this on this website. How did you do it? I have also got last year's race still recorded digitally on my freeview box, but haven't been sure how to get it off...

I was astonished Cambridge didn't have a pump. I thought the boatrace crews always did as a matter of course. They showed a short clip of one of the crews warming up prior to the race in pretty rough water - who's to say that Cambridge didn't have a significant payload of water even at the start of the race (when they lost over half a length)?
by dvb-t - Wed 5th Apr 2006, 3:08pm
Martin P said: How did you do it?
I have a digital tuner that plugs into my computer, and some Tivo-like software on the machine, so quite straightforward really. Don't know about getting stuff off PVRs though...

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.