Most Efficient Boat

read only section for reference and search purposes.
Locked
[old] schweinlew
Posts: 0
Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm

General

Post by [old] schweinlew » July 19th, 2005, 1:42 pm

Hello all,<br /><br />I cannot think of a better group to whom I might pose this question. So, pursuant to a conversation I was having with the USD (that's South Dakota) Crew Captain on the way back from the Chicago Sprints, which boat is most efficient? In other words, which boat, e.g. 8+, 4+, 4-, 4x, etc., most efficiently translates the work of the oarspersons into forward boat speed. I understand that many many other variables will influence the efficiency of a crew when it comes to energy in vs. forward motion out, but what about boats themselves? Which boat, all things held equal, provides the greatest speed to energy expenditure ratio?<br /><br />Thank you for any thoughts you may have.<br /><br />Will

[old] schweinlew
Posts: 0
Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm

General

Post by [old] schweinlew » July 19th, 2005, 1:43 pm

I forgot to ask whether this should be posted as a poll. Depending on the replies, I will be more than happy to conduct some survey research on the matter.<br /><br />Thanks again,<br /><br />Will

[old] remador
Posts: 0
Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm

General

Post by [old] remador » July 20th, 2005, 3:23 am

Hello!<br /><br />Don't ask me to say WHY, because it may be a case of stronger crews, etc., I don't know, but the 4- usually has times near the 4x, so... I would say it is quite efficient.<br /><br />AM

[old] remador
Posts: 0
Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm

General

Post by [old] remador » July 20th, 2005, 3:44 am

God! I can't believe! It's early in the morning and I am saying such a CRAP! Of course the 4x is more efficient: for the same rower's power, it is always faster than the 4-. From this point of view, it is surely the most efficient sculling boat, since it is lighter for rowers than the 2x (the boat has not twice the weight). I say sculling boat because the 8 is even lighter and an 8x is not more efficient (it would be too fast to row). Between th two, I can't say which is more efficient, but I'm inclined for the 4x, since it implies half the rowers.<br /><br />AM

[old] PaulH

General

Post by [old] PaulH » July 20th, 2005, 7:13 am

Single - doubles don't go twice as fast as it, quads don't go 4 times as fast, and eights...well, you get the idea!

[old] PaulS
Posts: 0
Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm

General

Post by [old] PaulS » July 20th, 2005, 8:09 am

Easy, the 8+.

[old] allapologies916
Posts: 0
Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm

General

Post by [old] allapologies916 » July 20th, 2005, 11:25 am

i would think a quad or a single... an 8 just doesnt seem to be the most efficient since there are 8 guys moving it....

[old] Canoeist
Posts: 0
Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm

General

Post by [old] Canoeist » July 20th, 2005, 2:34 pm

I think both PaulH and PaulS are right. It all depends how you define "efficient".<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />PaulF

[old] ancho
Posts: 0
Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm

General

Post by [old] ancho » July 20th, 2005, 8:28 pm

4x is almost as fast as an eight with half of HP (human power).<br />How about a coxless eight??

[old] jamesg

General

Post by [old] jamesg » July 21st, 2005, 1:25 am

Most efficient boat is a 1x. With eight times less power, can still go at 75% of the speed of an 8, and that's maybe due in part to the length.<br />At HRR, the Grand was won in 6:19, the Diamonds in 8:23.<br />As the sculler had to pull for 2 minutes more, I'd guess his sprint speed would be about 85% of an 8's. And he has to look after steering, tactics, suffers windage more, tho at least on the Henley course he doesn't need to look where he's going.

[old] Roland Baltutis
Posts: 0
Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm

General

Post by [old] Roland Baltutis » July 21st, 2005, 8:11 am

Just to be different I would say a lightweight coxless four. Why? Because they only have four oars, weigh the least (best overall power to weight ratio) and almost go as fast as the heavies anyway, and they don't have any passengers to carry as dead weight like the eight does. You get more bang for the overall weight (boat and crew) considering the number of oars used to move the boat. The eight and the quad scull are not greatly faster yet they need eight oars.<br /><br />Any boat with a cox would have to be ruled as less efficient because of the dead weight of the cox. The single sculler only has one motor (heart & lungs) and would be the first to tire (loose boat speed) in a head to head endurance contest with a bigger boat. A single scull is also the least stable of all boats in rough water.<br /><br />Keep it smooth, keep it relaxed<br />Roland Baltutis

[old] Jim Barry
Posts: 0
Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm

General

Post by [old] Jim Barry » July 21st, 2005, 11:07 am

For a given individual the amount of power needed for a given boat speed (less than the max speed of a single) is less in an 8 than any other boat. <br /><br />I think this is a trick question though because singles for instance can not go the speed of an 8 so in some regard there is no way to compare them. It's like comparing a Prius to an indycar. The indycar may seem like a big waste (it gets about 2 miles to the gallon), but when the task is to average 210mph for 500 miles on an oval raceway there is nothing more efficient than an indycar (except other racecars/motocycles perhaps). If the task is to get down a 2000m course in under 6:00 minutes there is nothing as efficient (better) at that task than an 8 (rowers held constant). If the task is to get down a course in and around 9:00 minutes then the single has the lowest total power requirement. Like the Prius the single is very good at going relatively slow, and like the indycar, the 8 is very good at going fast. <br />

Locked